Mike Braun's public safety plan.

Jennifer McCormick's abortion rights plan.

Plus secrecy around the cost of state executions and more.

From the television studios at WFYI, it's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending October 11th, 2024.

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

This week, Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Braun proposed a series of policies aimed at public safety.

They include increasing criminal penalties and improving access to mental health care resources.

Braun proposes harsher sentences for people who deal what he describes as lethal drugs like fentanyl and meth.

At the same time, Braun wants to continue investments in drug prevention and recovery while also allowing more telemedicine in mental health care.

Braun's proposals would pour more money into state police salaries and law enforcement training.

The Republican also wants to protect qualified immunity for police, which largely shields law enforcement from lawsuits.

Braun received backlash years ago for his proposal to reform qualified immunity in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, which he quickly dropped.

Braun says he would also involve more state resources and personnel in helping federal authorities enforce immigration laws, which includes continuing to send National Guard troops to the border in cooperation with border state officials.

Do Braun's public safety proposals strike the right balance?

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

Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican.

Mike O'Brien.

Oseye Boyd, editor in chief of Mirror Indy.

And Leslie Bonilla Muñiz, reporter for the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith Ann DeLaney.

Does this plan strike the right balance in public safety?

No, it doesn't.

I mean, it's obviously aimed at trying to repair what damage he had done to law enforcement by going after the immunity question for for law enforcement officers.

But no, if he had bothered to serve out his term in the legislature, he might have recognized the fact that his party, in a bipartisan effort to reform the judicial, the criminal justice provisions and the penalties and gave an awful lot of thought to it and the supermajority passed it.

Okay.

And this is a relatively recent development, and it strikes exactly the right balance between, penalizing the conduct.

We don't want to encourage.

And realistically, figuring out how to spend resources to keep our society safe.

As far as the mental health provisions go, I'm all for that.

That's that's good.

And that's already being undertaken.

so it's really not particularly innovative from that point of view.

And the third part of this is I know he was in Washington for a long time, and maybe he forgot that there are federal functions and state functions, but foreign policy is a federal function, and he should not be talking about sending National Guard troops from Indiana at at Indiana taxpayer expenses down to Texas, so that the Texas generals can order our troops around, which is what's happening now.

I mean, that's ridiculous, and that's pandering is what that is.

That and the and the increased penalties are pandering to the voters.

It's not realistic that the legislature dealt with that problem successfully.

Brown already picked up endorsements from several police organizations the FOP, the Indiana State Police Alliance.

So I don't think he needed to do anything on qualified immunity.

Do you find that part of this plan a little puzzling?

Not really, because he got it wrong to begin with.

And he knew that.

And then he talked to law enforcement and changed his mind.

He did that years ago.

You know, and so it doesn't make it it makes perfect sense that it's that it's part of this plan.

I'm glad and brought up criminal code reform.

I think Greg Steuerwald said it best at the time.

He's the motivation for that.

Perform at the time was a separate.

The people were scared of him.

The people were mad at Wright, and the mad at are the ones that are committing crimes that are motivated by, not motivated by, but caused by mental illnesses.

And we needed to identify that separated.

So we're not just putting everybody in the same population in this plan.

Mike Brown's plan addresses that.

And in a double doubles down on it, it coordinates law enforcement or advocates for better coordination for law enforcement.

and better funding for, for mental health.

That's all great.

And that criminal code reform was bipartisan two years ago.

And this should be, I think the legislature's look at that every year.

I mean, they did.

And they haven't done it.

Well, they.

Haven't I mean, they've there's been a mixed bag of what they have done.

Illegal immigration.

But look, I, I don't think it's particularly helpful and it's not helpful at all, frankly, when Donald Trump goes on a national debate and talks about eating dogs and cats because it diminishes from like, what are the real world impacts of illegal immigration in states?

And so when DeSantis and these guys were first sent in, the first guys, it's a national, they're National Guard troops on the border.

I was like, all right, this is pandering.

but I'm what?

I'm becoming won over pretty quick on the idea that the states do have to give.

There are federal functions, and when they're failing and you have the mayor Logansport this week who said, hey, we're a community, 18,000 people.

We can't take 10,000 Haitian immigrants.

We don't know what the impact is going to be, but forget illegal immigration, because we can't have a real conversation about it when New Carlisle is going to open a new data center, we ask a lot of questions about that.

It's celebrated and we ask a lot of questions about it.

What's the impact going to be on housing?

What's the impact going to be on utilities?

What's the impact going to be on health care at schools?

Public safety?

we ask those questions and those in that context.

But when you ask in the context of illegal immigration, it's like, all right, big get out of here.

And it's ridiculous.

And these are not illegal immigrants.

I know, I understand that, but the immigrant populations that are coming into the.

State allocation, a resource.

That was just that was just the example, the last 48 hours of of immigrants, illegal or not, coming into the country, unless you believe none are coming in and there is no impact when.

It starts.

But makes this country strong is that we get it.

That's great.

But asking real questions about what the impact is, if.

You.

Get treatment.

At some point.

It's none of those.

Things that needs.

To be asked.

And it needs to be controlled.

And the states are feeling the brunt of that more than ever, which is why a guy like Mike Braun and all these other governors are sending their troops.

Well, Mike Braun might have voted for the the proposal that was bipartisan in the Congress to deal with the boy each.

But he didn't.

So I think the conversation around immigration refugees is very kneejerk, and it doesn't take into account all the things we need to consider.

I do agree that we need to have a conversation about economic impact.

What happens when 10,000 people come into a community of 18,000 and they can't support it?

But and we do make it sound like every time you ask a question, it's, oh, you're bigot, you're racist.

I think we need to actually have the conversation and not, being so knee jerk about the conversation.

But what does happen?

What does happen to people who already need services in this country, in our state, who may now not get those services?

We're not asking those questions.

We don't.

That's something that has been frowned upon.

It's been taboo to talk about those things when we do need to talk about those things, because what about we are in a housing crisis in Indianapolis.

We are in a housing crisis.

What happens when we bring other people in?

What about the people that are living on the streets, that are that have been living here, that are citizens here?

We need to have a comprehensive conversation about how this affects everyone versus just, knee jerk.

Well, it's you're right, three races, you're prejudice.

Now to the question about sending troops down to the border.

I don't quite understand that.

I do have a problem with that.

I wonder what what is going on that you feel like Indiana needs to be all the way down in Texas?

And what is the cost of that?

There's a lot of things, I think, with his proposals that I have questioned about, it reminded me a little bit of compassionate conservatism, a throwback because we care about mental illness.

We want to we want to work on it.

It was a little throwback to me.

So I'm all over the place because he's all over the place.

So I'm trying to hit everything he's talked about.

so mental illness offensive?

Yes.

Maybe that's the word on being comprehensive because he's comprehensive.

I want to ask about I want to I want to ask about the mental health piece of this, because he's advocating not just to continue what we're doing, but to expand even more.

Last week on this show, we had the we talked about the Behavioral Health Commission coming out with their newest recommendation for mental health services in Indiana, being that they need to grow beyond what they did in the budget two years ago.

How big a boost as we look at the crowded funding priorities, how big a boost to something like that?

Is Mike Braun coming out and saying, yes, we need to expand mental health services.

How big a boost can you rephrase?

I mean, I mean, it certainly doesn't hurt, but does it, as you're talking about the priority, does it push it over the top is a good.

I think that it certainly helps.

But like when we're talking about Medicaid and education as swamping our budget and then you know, there's also these kind of undercurrents of things that are very expensive that are going to be popping up this session like, roads.

They want to like they're thinking about, you know, an overhaul or at least like finding more funding, like, you know, utilities also massively expensive.

We might be talking about, you know, delaying plant retirements and stuff like that.

I think that it certainly helps, but I think that there's just a lot competing there.

But I will say that, for for his part, he also did very specifically avoid, you know, drug users in his, plan for tackling the drug crisis.

It was very focused on distributors.

And I think that those two things kind of go hand in hand where he's kind of, you know, pushing some compassion and help for people that are negatively impacted by this and going really hard after those who, you know, make a living, make money off of it.

Yeah.

All right.

Reproductive rights have been a centerpiece of Democrat Jennifer McCormick's gubernatorial campaign from the beginning, and proposals McCormick unveiled this week flesh out how she would confront the state's near-total abortion ban in the governor's office.

McCormick has long said she'd use the platform of the governor's office to advocate for changes to the state's abortion ban.

But short of that, she says she would appoint people to state boards and commissions that are, in her words, more supportive of women and health care providers.

I mean, not following the law is not an option, but there is a lot of space on educating people, making sure that they have resources where they need to go, making sure we're having a targeted effort to keep clinics open so that when women are in trouble, they have somewhere to go.

McCormick says.

As governor, she would also fight to ensure medical records, particularly terminated pregnancy reports, remain private.

Mike O'Brien how much can McCormick use the governor's office to expand abortion access further than it currently exists, without changing state law on abortion?

For abortion specifically, she can't really do anything.

That law is pretty tight, and that was on purpose.

You know, the legislature took control of that, and they're really not in the mood right now, Republican or Democrat, to give, to give.

So I think Democrats are being but yes.

Seen your point.

The Republican legislature.

Okay.

Good clarification.

Republicans in the legislature are not in the mood to give expanded flexibility and power to the executive branch on this or anything else.

right now, she could, but I mean, through the state's Medicaid program, through, you know, other we saw, you know, under Mike pence, reductions in funding for Planned Parenthood, not even abortion, but just like access to, contraception, those types of resources.

so there is some flexibility if you're just thinking statute, you know, you know, administrative law administratively on how you how you could expand it, I am interested, you know, we've talked a lot in like three years now about the political upside for Democrats of making abortion a centerpiece.

And we haven't seen it ever materialize.

I'm as interested in anyone to see if it see if it works.

Democrats have put this right square in the center of of everything they're talking about.

McCormick's incredibly creative about how you know, if you watch her ads, I'll give her credit.

She's incredibly creative in how she talks about running as a Republican.

Never really corrects the record that she's not run as a Democrat, but then pivots right to abortion.

And and I'm interested to see if it works up.

I'll be as surprised as anybody if it does.

but let's have the election to find out.

I guess there have been a lot of questions from Democrats about, well, you're still going to have a Republican legislature.

Maybe the Democrats break the supermajority in the House, but they're definitely not going to break it in the Senate.

And they're certainly not breaking the majority.

It's literally impossible.

So there have been a lot of questions from Democrats to McCormick.

How could you possibly actually move the needle on abortion?

Well.

These possibles, did these policies make sense to you?

Yeah, they do.

I mean, we're talking about the funding for Planned Parenthood and contraception and things like that that she can influence.

She can also influence the appointments by the governor to different boards, like the medical licensing Board, so the doctors can be assured that they're not going to be targeted by Todd Rokita and the Medical licensing Board when they shouldn't be.

And so there are different, appointments that she can make.

And she will control FSA about releasing that information.

And she can fight the attorney general about releasing that information so that women who have legal abortions won't be targeted by our attorney general.

So there are definite things that she can do to make it better.

She can't cure the problem.

And we won't cure the problem until we get a federal law on this, or we get control of the legislature, because the super majority in the legislature is not interested in listening to what the voters want.

The overwhelming majority of voters in Indiana want more access to abortion for different reasons, not, you know, on demand as the Republicans like to say, and not up to the ninth month, which isn't legal anywhere, by the way.

But when you have situations which mandate abortions for a variety of either health reasons or, you know, you get young children that don't realize that they've been, that they're impregnated, and until after the window passes, those kinds of things they should have access to.

And that's what voters want.

It will be an issue this, this election.

I should make a future poll question, which is going to happen.

First, a federal, abortion rights law signed into law or Democrats take back control of the Indiana legislature?

Well, we got to redistrict.

It's going to be it's going to be.

Because of the gerrymandering.

I can't believe I open that door.

we just talked about this a little bit with Mike Braun.

Mike Braun advocates for things.

How much the legislature is going to play into that is really up to the legislature here.

When McCormick talks about using the governor's office as a bully pulpit to push them to do a public referendum or push them to make changes, is that really going to make a difference if she's governor and the legislature is controlled by Republicans?

Yeah.

You know, you can say what you want, but it really it really comes down to, you know, who's in that chair and in those meeting rooms at the state Capitol building.

something else to we talked about, you know, what can agent what what room is there within, like, agencies to interpret things differently and on those boards to change out members.

But we've seen that lawmakers have had an appetite recently for curtailing the actions that agencies can take.

And, even removing some of that discretion or requiring greater oversight.

So I think the I don't know, there's a potential for it to turn into sort of a back and forth, like outdoing each other, like, oh, I found this loophole.

Oh, we've legislated a way to close that.

So I want to go back to the point Mike made towards the end of his piece, which is we've been talking for now, you know, two plus years since the abortion ban was passed.

But Democrats trying to use abortion to capitalize off at the polling place, we didn't really see it in 2022.

Now we're staring at the face of 2024.

Do you think it can be a motivating factor in this state?

I just want to make one point.

I thought we saw it in 2022.

We should have had a Republican landslide in 2022 and we didn't.

Yeah, but statewide it didn't make a difference.

So they picked up a seat in the House and lost a seat in the Senate.

So do you think it can be a major factor for voters in this state?

Yes and no.

No, not 100%.

No.

Because I think what people people at the state House, people who really are into government care about this issue.

But does the regular average person get wrapped up in abortion?

I don't think so.

I think I think there's a there's a certain class of people who care.

I don't think a lot of people even really are still aware of when is that?

What is the rule?

What is the plan?

What is what happens?

until it until is that time until.

Oh, I didn't mean to get pregnant.

I'm pregnant now, what do I do then?

You actually care?

And then you're like, oh, we have a we have a ban.

I didn't know we had a ban.

A lot of people are there.

We don't want to we don't want to actually acknowledge that a lot of people live in that space of we don't know what's going on.

So the people who actually it matters to, I don't think they're coming out to vote, because I don't think they even realize that they can make a change, or that even need to make a change it.

Can this have can just have an impact on some of these tight suburban state House races?

I think it's in close races.

It can make a difference.

Yeah, I think it's if you're right and they are Democrats are running really targeted, data driven campaigns on on voter turnout and and things like that.

And but I want to add another point.

When we're talking about voter turnout, the people who are voting are not the ones that we really need to hit, the ones that really this bill really affects the work.

The ban really affects.

Those are people who are not voting.

Yeah, I think they're already motivated to vote and they're already now with us.

Yeah.

Right.

And so they're probably already showing up.

This is never a top three issue is the problem.

It's a top ten issue but it's a top eight issue.

It's a it's eighth of the top ten.

Yeah.

Among women I don't think so okay.

The Indiana women are going to find out.

Among a certain segment of women.

All right.

The Indiana Capitol Chronicle reported this week the state refuses to disclose how much it paid for a new execution drug that will allow it to begin carrying out the death penalty for the first time in more than a decade.

The long delay in executions was primarily centered on a lack of execution drugs.

The state secured a new drug, pentobarbital, earlier this year, but the state has refused to share the name of the pentobarbital supplier, how much it purchased and how much it paid for the drug.

A 2017 law shielded information about the source of execution drugs from public disclosure, but that law doesn't mention cost.

The Capital Chronicle filed a records request with the Department of Correction, but the agency denied that request.

Leslie, realistically, would knowing the cost of this drug or the cost of executions really change anyone's mind about whether the state should still perform them?

You know, I think, I mean, there's reporting out there.

Records are pretty sparse, but there's reporting out there that states are paying enormous sums of money for not very much product.

you know, we're seeing, Arizona 2023 paid, you know, $1,000 a gram.

And it seems like that price is going up because, recent reporting that Idaho and or sorry, 2020, 2023 Idaho, paid like well over $3,000 a gram.

Well, I mean, you have a case of not a lot of companies want to produce this stuff in the first place.

So the I mean, the supply of it is so scarce that it's driving up the price even more.

Right.

And so, I mean, there's that, but I don't really know that, you know, $1.5 million here or a couple million dollars there.

I don't know that that will really change the mind of people who already, you know, believe or don't believe in capital punishment.

But I do think that that transparency of knowing, you know, sort of a little bit more about this deeply secretive process that ultimately could result, you know, in the end of an inmate's life of a Hoosier citizens life.

I think that that transparency is worthwhile just on its face, even if it doesn't change anyone's mind.

Why hide it?

That's my question.

Why can't we know who, who's producing it and what the cost is?

I think that's very important as we talk about, prison reform, as we talk about how much it cost to house an inmate, all these things, when we're talking about putting money into public safety, what is the cost of, executing someone and to the point of the cost of 3000 per gram, then how many grams are we have?

We don't know how much it takes to actually, in someone's life.

We don't know how long it takes.

We don't know what.

We don't know a lot of things about the process.

And so it just seems very, the transparency, the lack of transparency seems to be on purpose because there seem to be a lot of things, nefarious things, it seems.

So remove that, remove that.

So we will know what exactly was transpiring.

So we don't doesn't leave a conspiracy because when you don't know.

Yeah.

Everybody has their own thoughts.

The motivation, it would seem, behind shielding public disclosure of who they're getting the drug from was about increasingly companies didn't want people to know because they would get boycotted or things like that.

And so it was that's part of why it became impossible for a while for states to get access to these drugs.

So I get that motivation, whether I agree with it or not.

But why are you shielding the information about the things just oh, she just talked about how much it takes, how much you're paying for it, how it works.

Why why is all of that have to be secret too?

I have no idea.

But I think what confuses me about it further, is that people that have arrived at the position that they support the capital punishment, the death penalty didn't get there because of a cost benefit analysis of what a of comparing incarcerating an individual for the rest of their life or putting them to death.

Yeah, they weren't looking at a spreadsheet.

No, you're not like reform on somebody like, you know, like like Trent, like so I don't I don't understand you're conflating two different belief systems.

And one is for Republicans that tend to more often support the death penalty, fiscal conservatism with being hard on crime.

And those things are separate, like Republicans will spend virtually any amount of money to be tough on crime.

Right?

That's not you're not you're not getting hit politically for running up the budget on.

Right.

So why do you need so well then why do you need to hide how much you're.

Supposed to be able to brag about.

Yeah.

Why why why you.

Conceal the company's identity.

Sure.

I get the motivation behind it.

Yeah, but not the cost and not how many grams.

And it's just that they're they're basically.

They may support the death penalty, but they're ambiguous about all the things surrounding it.

What does it take?

What if what if people suffer in that and on and on and on.

And frankly, you know, I understand the need for justice.

And I understand in many cases the need families feel for revenge.

If you've got a murdered, loved one.

I do understand that.

But you also have to balance that, not just about the cost of incarcerating, but the reality of life.

When they get to be 55 or 60 years of age, they're not a threat to anybody anymore.

Murders are not committed by people that old.

Violent crime comes between 18 and 35, and after that, it's almost inconceivable.

And yet we're paying for them because revenge or punishment or whatever put them out on the street, let them earn their own way.

When they get to be that age, save the money of incarceration.

I don't know about that.

Forget the that's going further.

So it's not it's it's not just they're not a threat anymore.

Okay.

And that's the point.

All right.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is should Indiana get rid of the death penalty a yes or B no?

Last week we asked you whether Indiana should ban digital manipulation that creates falsified images and campaign ads.

96% say yes, 4% say no.

Which tells us there are some Republicans who watch the show who think we should get rid of those.

If you'd like to take part in the poll.

Go WFYI.org/IWIR and look for the poll.

Well, finally, the city of Beech Grove here in Marion County announced this week it's temporarily changing its name from now.

From November 1st through the third, the city will be known as Beech Grove Taylor's version.

That's in honor of Taylor Swift, who will perform in Indianapolis that weekend.

Mike O'Brien fun or cringe?

I have two daughters who I have two daughters and zero tickets for three concerts, and so I've been treading really lightly about any criticism or.

Anything.

Anything having to do with Taylor Swift.

So fun is your goal.

It's fun.

It's so fun.

It's all fun.

We're having fun, fun, fun.

Crazy.

Do you like.

It?

It's fun for the same reason it's fun.

Yeah, I did appreciate it.

Let me tell.

I'll leave it there for no Swifties come after me.

Yeah, exactly.

There.

Very well.

Now I regret asking the question at all.

Well, you can take the.

No.

Absolutely not.

Fun.

It's all fun.

Everything is fun.

That's Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican Mike O'Brien, Oseye Boyd of Mirror Indy and Leslie Bonilla Muñiz of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Weekend Reviews, podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/queer 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 opinions expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is a WFYI production in association with Indiana's public broadcasting stations.