Indiana National Guard could get expanded.

Policing powers.

Hospitals raise the alarm around funding and transgender rights debated again at the statehouse.

From the television studios at WFYI Public Media.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending January 30th.

2026.

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

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.

A bill would allow Indiana National Guard military police to make arrests and conduct searches when activated by the governor.

Caroline Beck reports the measure is advancing at the state House.

The Indiana governor already has broad powers over when to deploy the National Guard in the state, and even the authority to make arrests in certain circumstances.

The bill would expand those policing powers.

Democrats, including Representative Matt Pierce, largely condemned the measure and say it could lead to dangerous scenarios like those seen recently in Minneapolis between protesters and federal law enforcement agents.

Once you implement something like this, you have no idea how things can spin out of control.

And we've seen that a community after community to the point of tragedy.

Republicans and National Guard leaders support the bill, saying it is another tool in their toolbox for responding to a crisis.

The bill now heads to the Senate.

Should the state expand National Guard policing powers.

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

Democrat Lindsey Haake, Republican Joey Fox, Camike Jones, editor in chief at the Indianapolis Recorder.

And Leslie Bonilla Mniz reporter at Indiana Capital Chronicle.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

So, Lindsey, is this legislation ill timed?

Yeah, this legislation, if guilty of anything, this legislation is definitely guilty of being ill timed.

but I'll tell you, after watching the, you know, I was in Minneapolis just a few weeks ago, right before, the murder of of Alex.

And, my family lives not too far away from where this happened.

And, I keep really close contact with my my family there, and it has really been a reckoning.

And so I completely understand the fear coming out of the legislature with this bill, I understand it.

But it is important to recognize that Speaker Huston is correct.

This was written way before this conversation ever even started nationally.

And though there is debate to be had about tyranny and all of that larger conversation, I'm not necessarily sure this bill is it.

A lot of these powers are already expressly outlined for the governor here in the state.

And frankly, the only concern I have right now is that it might a little bit on local control, only because I've heard a few local folks say that they would not have any input as to whether the governor would call up folks to come help at the local level.

So, as you know, Lindsay mentioned Joey, this does the governor already does have pretty broad powers at this concerning the National Guard.

should lawmakers be worried about adding more powers?

I don't think so.

And for this specific reason is that this is not something that applies to every single member of the National Guard.

You said it in the introduction of the package here.

This is about military police.

These are folks that have training right, in law enforcement.

They will be ready with their training to engage.

So this I just kind of look at this is the word that was used was a force multiplier.

Right.

You look at moments in our in our state's recent history, you know, after the riots in 2020, things where it would have been really helpful to have more cops on the street.

this is one tool.

I trust our state's leadership to use these tools wisely.

The fact that the National Guard itself supports this, I think is a is a great sign.

And, you know, we'll have some more debate on it as as this thing goes.

But I think this is good policy.

Leslie, what stood out to you?

I know you did cover this issue this week as lawmakers debated.

I think one thing to note, too, is that the National Guard said that they're not creating anything new, that this would be combining six units and basically under a new name.

And, I mean, I think that other thing, obviously there's fears about this being an expansion of power.

But, as the author of this bill and others have noted, they are framing it more as a constraint on power because of the training requirements that it includes.

they'd also need an up to date security clearance and, a felony check.

so, I don't know, there's a lot of food for thought here.

You know, coming up, when we do think about, you know, as Joey mentioned, one of the last times the National Guard was called in during the social unrest protests in 2020.

Here.

It's kind of the visual of, you know, having, you know, an added law enforcement on the streets of your city.

Is that something that we should be concerned about as more people are going into the streets and protesting?

I think it should be a concern.

I kind of agree with Lindsay.

I don't know that this is the way to do it because like you really look at like, what's the return on investment here?

How much is this going to cost Hoosiers to be able to do something like this, as well as what specific holes in law enforcement already exist that cannot be resolved in some other manner?

And so if you look at it that way, maybe there isn't the need for this level of enforcement, to support what Hoosiers are already having at their disposal.

Joey, we did hear a number of Republicans talking as well as this legislation.

was urged by, Boston legislation that use the National Guard.

in that situation there, as that was 13 years ago.

Is that something, though, that we should be considering, you know, the way that the National Guard has or has, not successfully played out in the past.

There are going sadly, right in our world.

There's going to be times, I think, when the local police just simply do not have the manpower to address certain issues.

And you're referring to the Boston bombing, right?

In the investigation, kind of the manhunt that had to happen there.

I think the men and women that choose put on the uniform and serve in the National Guard will take this responsibility seriously if and when it has to be asked to be used.

and so, yeah, I think that's a worthy, worthy way of thinking about this.

Like, let's make sure the tool is there before we need it.

and not in a place where we're begging for a tool that doesn't yet exist.

I will note some of the commentary during this bill discussion on the floor was rather, frankly, insulting.

I mean, I heard comments tossed off about paramilitary organizations.

Not that guard is not paramilitary.

It is a military organization that is full of volunteers and Hoosiers.

This is not ICE.

This is a completely different conversation.

And while I 100% agree with those comments, I think it's terrible optics.

You know, right now, it's definitely a victim of that.

but this is not that.

And I think the distinguished the conversation needs to be accurate.

So we certainly know that in Minnesota, you know, the governor had called for the National Guard.

And that is completely different.

Not necessarily to you'll see that happen here.

And indeed.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week, we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question should Indiana lawmakers prioritize the expansion of National Guard policing powers?

Answer yes or no.

The last question posed to viewers.

Does Indiana need even more restrictions on abortion?

96% saying no.

And 4% saying yes.

If you would like to take part in the poll.

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

The Indiana Hospital Association released a new report on Tuesday, warning that many of the state's hospitals are financially vulnerable.

As Ben Thorp reports, officials say 45% of Indiana hospitals.

Are operating at a loss.

The passage of the One big, beautiful bill is expected to result in insurance coverage losses that lead to a $13 billion cut to Indiana hospitals over the next decade.

Hospital officials say they want to see Indiana increase Medicaid reimbursement rates to help offset those expected cuts.

Brenda Reetz is the CEO of the Greene County General Hospital in rural Linton, which closed its obstetrics unit this month because of poor reimbursements.

And we're going to continue to see more and more cuts like this throughout the state.

If something isn't done.

Rietz also says hospitals have been impacted by delays and coverage denials from commercial insurers, something that has also affected their bottom lines.

So, Joey, are Indiana hospitals in a crisis situation?

Probably depends on which hospital you're talking about.

right.

As a as a tactic for persuasion.

Right.

It makes sense that you use the worst examples, right.

To try to try to make your point.

I think the, the state's major, hospital systems, that drive a lot of the pricing that the legislature has been dealing with over the last couple of years, probably not in a crisis situation.

But that's also why you've seen the legislature.

They've dealt with health care over the last several years.

They oftentime break out and into large nonprofit systems versus, critical access hospitals or rural, rural hospitals because you've got major hospital systems in the state that have, you know, a year of cash on hand.

They have tons of investments in Wall Street.

their margins, you know, can continue to go.

And then I think the the issue that I deal with, is I think about this when they say we want increases in Medicaid rates, right.

Is one is the state probably just can't afford that right now.

The Medicaid program is not sustainable as it is, but also you would want there to be a corresponding decrease in the commercial rates that you have.

And I have a hard time believing our friends of the hospital Association would support that.

At the same time.

So, Lindsay, when we were hearing about this measure and the the fact that the hospitals are saying they're so financially strapped, you know, we're a lot of a lot of talking about the one big, beautiful Bill and how it is going to impact Indiana hospitals.

Do the math.

Math for you.

Do the math.

Math.

yes.

But and so I'm with Joey on it really depends on what you're talking about here.

But you've got many hospitals who are in dire straits.

And that was clearly I mean, that is not the narrative at the state House seems to be, the larger the larger hospitals are facing, their, overcharging.

They have this giant endowment.

You know, there's a lot of that narrative going on.

The legislators have been really, really, good at spearheading those issues.

That was a prime issue last year.

We saw PBM reform.

We saw, we saw a lot last year.

And so that narrative has not stopped.

However, this is still a critical issue for many, many hospitals.

And you've got one down in, southern Indiana that's looking at a needs a brand new piece of equipment, linear, a linear accelerator.

Excuse me.

And that is 5 million purchase and that's a lot of cash for a hospital that's operating on sometimes less than one year worth of operating funding.

So you've got a huge issue here.

I think this report doesn't separated out into a rural hospital versus a, you know, an urban hospital or a large health system.

And so I'd like to see more data.

But yeah, it's not great.

Leslie, I know you followed this issue as well this week.

You know, is this more a problem for rural hospitals from what you were hearing?

Yeah, from what we heard, it definitely seems like a bigger deal for smaller rural, safety net and critical access hospitals.

but I don't know that there's too much, appetite to do something, especially this year, given all of those reforms that you were talking about recently.

Leaders have told us that they maybe want to give some of those efforts time to sink in and start, you know, producing results before they so they can analyze, you know, did that work as the way that we wanted it to before they do more?

So I'm not sure that they're necessarily going to get the relief that they want right now.

But it does seem kind of, you know, trying to change those perceptions at the state House could very well be a multi-year thing for them.

And we did hear hospitals come back, could talk about how they needed help from the state, how they needed help from the federal government.

Is this an issue that they should prioritize?

It's an issue they should prioritize because even though it may not be affecting everyone in the state, if it's affecting someone, then there has to be some solution for it.

And you think about rural hospitals that, cover, a significant amount of Hoosiers.

So we don't want to discount the lived experiences of those people who really rely on those hospitals for support.

So, yes, absolutely.

There should be some sort of effort and consideration for how to actually resolve that issue because the labor costs are going up, but the Medicaid reimbursement rates are not going up accordingly.

And so then what do you do?

You're stuck in the situation.

And then if I'm a person who's living in a rural community, I still need that to be able to access the hospital regardless of whatever the, current legislation is.

I still need some support medically.

Well, legislation moving through the state House as well that would define gender and sex and the words male and female and adds restrictions based on that, Zak Cassel reports.

The wide ranging bill from Republican Senator Liz Brown limits local doctors to record only male or female on a birth certificate and prohibits most gender marker changes.

It also restricts placement of people in prison based on sex, a last minute addition at a bathroom, and other restrictions for all public schools and state educational institutions.

Emma Voskicky is the executive director of GenderNexus.

Today, the committee is being asked to enshrine an ideology regarding sex, which does not reflect medical science, contradicts the findings of 29 of the largest U.S.

health organizations.

Supporters say the bill protects women, while opponents hold that it addresses a major problem and exposes transgender people to harm.

So, Camike, why do you think lawmakers have again prioritized this proposal?

Well, it's part of the national conversation.

There is a lot of communication going on, a lot of news about, issues related to representation for the transgender community and what they can access or should access, or how people identify themselves.

the bill itself does delineate, you know, restrooms and locker rooms and things of that nature.

At the same time, trans advocates would, would probably argue that the lived experiences that they're having as far as if I'm male presenting and then I'm required to enter a restroom with young ladies, how does that actually work in the real world?

And then also one of the, you know, just looking at social media and how people are responding to that.

One of the first things that people said was, who's going to really be implementing this?

And how are they going to be policing this?

The people on the front lines, that puts a lot of different folks in a vulnerable position.

The folks on the front lines, as well as the people who they're having to, regulate as well.

So there's like, you know, and past and recent years, we have seen quite a bit of measures that, do go after LGBTQ and trans rights, as this is going to be a continuing theme at the state House for us.

I think that the sort of broad public perception has kind of shifted a little bit.

there's been kind of a reaction back.

but I also think that this bill in particular, you know, coming off a pretty difficult redistricting season where, you know, specific Indiana lawmakers have been called out by name by the president and he's, you know, backed challengers against them for the primaries.

I think that this bill in some ways, can present kind of an easy win for them to present to their constituents and make the case for themselves.

kind of, shore up those conservative credentials.

And I think that the Bill author in particular, Senator Liz Brown, has, been kind of really leaning into her sort of anti-abortion and, gender sex kind of themes this session.

as she kind of faces off against the primary challenger and also, heavy and like, you know, for a few months now, criticism from our attorney general as criticizing her for being too soft.

So I think, there's a lot that's going into why we've seen this right now.

Immigration bill in particular that I'm thinking of, that he.

Has I think we have a lot of campaign issues in house and Senate bills this year.

It's clear.

Yeah, I think this bill in the.

Know I think this bill I mean, this is the this is supposed to be the year of affordability at the Indiana legislature.

This is supposed to be whether this is a, I don't think this bill helps anyone who has a your point about enforcement is spot on.

Who is going to be enforcing this?

How is this going to be helping people?

It's just not and frankly, governing, governing bathroom access and facilities access is we've played that game.

That is done.

We have tried to charge people money to have access to public restrooms.

That is all done 100 years ago.

And this needs to just simply move and go in the trash.

I mean, if it is all done, you know, this bill also includes language that addresses, you know, the prisons.

But we're hearing that, that's not really an issue because, you know, people are not, separated by gender in the prisons.

And if the issue isn't really that important, should lawmakers.

Well, I mean, I think the issue is important is we wouldn't have a bill that is passed in the Senate, right, if there weren't individuals that thought.

So I think you have to 100% balance the humanity of our fellow Hoosiers in this conversation with the legal issues that I think are underlying it.

This started out about birth certificates, right?

This is a critical legal document.

And when should you be able to change something like that?

Right.

That is done.

There was a lot of debate on this, the bathroom issue.

Right.

If you go to, I think probably a lot of members of the general public and say, hey, do you want a man in a women's restroom?

If their children let's if you're going to get answers right, that will be controversial, right?

Amongst are we going to have viewers on all sides, all sides of this?

But I think this is a fair discussion to have.

We've got a whole nother half right to work through it.

And I also think depending on where the language ends up on the restroom issue.

Right.

There's nothing in that bill that like precludes unisex restrooms, things like that.

Right.

And allowing businesses to make some of those decisions as well.

So I feel like they're trying to balance the interests that are here.

Let's see where we are in a month.

Yeah.

I mean, it is certainly comical, though, an extremely emotional issue as we see so many people, you know, really come out in full force at the statehouse and, and try to have their voices heard.

Absolutely.

There are young people who are identifying as transgender.

And so having spaces for them in the school setting would be appropriate.

It also probably would inhibit some of the harassment that they might experience.

So it is a safety concern all around.

But the really thinking about how this is going to play out and how students are going to be interacting with each other, and who's going to be responsible for managing all of that.

It should be at the forefront.

Another bill that would have required Indiana schools to post the Ten Commandments in classroom is gaining traction, but not before being changed drastically.

Caroline Beck reports.

The proposed bill would still allow teachers.

And principals to post the Ten Commandments in schools and be required to keep a copy in school libraries, but teachers cannot read it aloud to students.

Author Representative Michelle Davis says she views the Ten Commandments as a way to.

Provide moral guidance to students.

Well, we have a lot of violence going on.

We, I work in an education system, so we have a lot of kids who who don't understand authority, who don't respect authority.

So I feel like this is a good start, to help them understand, personal responsibility.

But opponents say they worry.

It could instead alienate students who may worship different.

Faiths.

So, Leslie, why do you think the language was scaled back on this particular measure?

lawsuits?

I think that, like, Indiana lawmakers aren't necessarily, you know, they're willing to tend to lawsuits when they think that, you know, we've heard a lot of denunciations of frivolous lawsuits and sort of like, national kind of interest group lawsuits and stuff like that.

But I think that when it comes to something about, the role of religion, and where government kind of comes in with that, I think that, those probably pulled back a little bit in order to not invite any like clearly, you know, obvious losses at the state might no one wants to be responsible for the state, you know, losing buckets on a lawsuit that could have been probably avoided.

So that that's my.

Can we could you think, you know, that this is an acknowledgment of the importance of separation between, you know, church and schools, amongst lawmakers.

It seems to me, you know, changing the language to allowing as opposed to requiring, really and make some efforts toward that, because there obviously there are people of different faiths on all sorts of sides of schools.

And, you know, whether that is the administration and the staff or even the student.

So, you know, having a requirement to speak about the Ten Commandments.

I mean, honestly, I don't know all the Christians who can really just rattle off all ten commandments at any given time anyway.

So it does seem to be an effort toward finding some middle ground.

There.

So, you know, we are considering some other measures of the state House that sort of determine what are taught in classroom.

One such bill, you know, would determine, whether or not the success sequence is taught in school.

And so this bill is moving, through the state House, and it says that it's got three steps to it, but says that, people should consider, marriage before having children is one of those.

That seems to be the particular, issue that would be taught at schools that has become, you know, kind of a sticking point.

Is this something the success sequence, a completely different bill, something that it should be considering.

It is the success sequence.

process.

Right.

Is is rooted in statistical analysis of how to help you prevent being poor later on in your life as an adult, if you kind of do certain things in certain orders, right, which are things I, you know, I kind of want to get to, you know, political science here.

But these are bourgeois values, right?

These are things we talk about.

Finish high school, get married, then have children, are things you're very unlikely statistically to end up poor.

That is not a moral judgment on someone that does not do those things in that order.

This is trying to make the point that there are some things that you can do, some choices you can make in your life, but set you up really well for long term success.

So as a general statement, that's what they're trying.

That's what they're trying to push.

I feel like this has gotten, the criticism of that proposal, in my view, has gotten a little bit out of hand.

this is not a moral judgment on people.

This is, trying to use, social science and come back and explain a way that you can be more successful long term in your life.

And I think it's a good proposal.

Well, my point is, these are both kind of linked, you know, when we're talking about.

Yeah, your.

Children with a lot of different backgrounds.

And this correlation is not causation.

And this is this is this shouldn't be legislated.

That's period.

I'm a low income advocate and I do not, see any folks who I'm working with ask for more legislation to tell folks how not to be poor.

It's laughable.

And it should also go into the trash.

Another issue facing Hoosiers this week was Snowmageddon 2026.

A lot of parts of the state seeing the most snow that we've seen in years and years.

And Leslie, also, state lawmakers were not able to make it into the office on Monday.

And that's the first time that's happened in quite a bit.

Yeah, we'll say the house did not go in, but the Senate still did.

They rallied and came in that afternoon.

We were not.

They said right now we'll have to be.

Our halftime is kind of, reconfigured because then the deadline for third reading bills is not in the in the House is not until Monday.

It's already set.

Up.

Be heading into committee hearings on Tuesday.

Yeah.

Well, I mean, yeah, I had facilities already.

Because I heard a lot of chatter from people that I, you know, had difficulty filling childcare during this time, too, because snow days are kind of an absolutely.

Absolutely.

I will, give kudos to my kids for shoveling.

I appreciate that.

But we did have to go to our respective parents.

I did see a lot of lobbyists with kids.

The well, that's Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel has been Democrat Lindsey Haake, Republican Joey Fox, Camike Jones, editor in chief at the Indianapolis Recorder, and Leslie Bonilla Mniz, reporter at Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Reviews podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR, or on the PBS app.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

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 ParrRichey.