ZOOF FROM THE TELEVISION STUDIOS AT WFYI, IT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW, THE WEEK ENDING JUNE 30th, 2023.

Ï ¿IWIR 3544 6.30.23 OPEN TEASE FROM THE TELEVISION STUDIOS AT WFYI, ITÂ ™S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING JUNE 30, 2023.

>> THE BAN IS NOW SET TO GO INTO EFFECT WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.

UNDER THE LAW ABORTIONS ARE ONLY ALLOWED IF THE PREGNANT PERSON'S HEALTH OR LIFE IS AT RISK, IF THERE'S A LETHAL FETAL ANOMALY 20 WEEKS POST-FERTILIZATION OR IN THE CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST, BUT ONLY UP TO TEN WEEKS.

HOW WILL THIS RULING IMPACT HOOSIERS?

IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW PANEL.

DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY, REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN, JOHN SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS AND NIKI KELLY, EDITOR IN CHIEF OF THE INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE.

I'M BRANDON SMITH.

ANN, BEFORE I GET TO THE QUESTION, A LITTLE FURTHER EXPLANATION.

THERE IS A SEPARATE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE ABORTION BAN UNDER THE STATE'S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT.

THAT IS ONGOING.

THE LAW WAS HALTED IN THAT CASE, BUT ONLY AS IT APPLIES TO THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT THAT LAWSUIT WHO SAID THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WERE INFRINGED.

IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THAT RULING HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO COVER ANYONE IN THE STATE WHOSE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SPECIFICALLY SAY THEY NEED TO GET AN ABORTION, BUT EVEN THAT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE.

SO UNDER TODAY'S RULING FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF HOOSIERS ABORTION IS NOW LARGELY ILLEGAL, AND BARRING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IS IT LIKELY TO STAY THAT WAY FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?

>> I THINK IT PROBABLY IS.

I'M OBVIOUSLY DISAPPOINTED.

I THOUGHT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION TO CONTROL OUR OWN BODIES.

THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.

WHAT THEY DID SAY IS THAT WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE.

THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE.

OKAY.

WELL, THERE ARE SOME IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT WOULD DENY WOMEN THAT RIGHT, WOULD SAY YOU CARRY THE CHILD TO TERM EVEN IF IT MEANS THE WOMAN'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

SO I SUPPOSE THAT IS SOMETHING APPROACHING PROGRESS, BUT IT DOESN'T REFLECT WHERE HOOSIERS ARE.

I THOUGHT ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING THINGS WAS ONE OF THE JUSTICES SUGGESTING THAT THIS OUGHT TO BE ON THE BALLOT AND AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, BUT THE REPUBLICANS WON'T DO THAT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT IN TOUCH WITH WHAT HOOSIERS WANT.

THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK BEING EMBOLDENED IN PART WITH THIS BECAUSE THEY DON'T RECOGNIZE -- THE SUPREME COURT DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THE CONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPTION FOR RAPE AND INCEST, AND FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME EITHER.

THE CRAZIES, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THEM IN THE CAUCUS ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, WILL COME BACK IN WITH PROPOSALS TO BAN IT IN RAPE AND INCEST AND IN OTHER SITUATIONS LIKE THAT.

THAT IS NOT WHERE HOOSIERS ARE, OKAY?

THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO.

>> TO THAT POINT, THE RULING ONLY SAYS LIFE OR SERIOUS HEALTH RISK TO THE PREGNANT PERSON AND LEAVES OUT RAPE OR INCEST IN TERMS OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT.

WE SAW THOSE VOTES IN THE SPECIAL SECTION.

THERE WAS A STRAIGHT UP OR DOWN VOTE IN BOTH CHAMBERS ON IF THE RAPE OR INCEST EXCEPTION SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF THE LAW, AND THERE WAS ABOUT 30% IN EACH CHAMBER WHO SAID, YES, THOSE SHOULDN'T BE EXCEPTIONS.

ARE THOSE NUMBERS UNLIKELY TO CHANGE MUCH IF THEY TOOK THAT VOTE AGAIN AT THE STATEHOUSE?

>> YEAH, I THINK SO BECAUSE, WELL, TWO THINGS HAPPENED.

ONE, THERE WAS NO POLITICAL CONSEQUENCE EITHER FOR THE BAN THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE OR THAT WAS VOTED IN PLACE, AND NOW DETERMINED IT WILL GO IN PLACE.

THERE WAS NO POLITICAL CONSEQUENCE ON THE FAR RIGHT FOR TAKING OUT THOSE EXCEPTIONS, EXCEPT THAT THAT'S NOT AS CLEAN A POLITICAL THEORY THAT I CAN PROMOTE BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION YEAR.

WE'RE 90 DAYS OUT FROM AN ELECTION.

IT WASN'T A TOTALLY CLEAN LOOK AT WHAT ARE ACTUALLY THE POLITICS OF THIS.

NOW, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT IT WAS ALSO TOP OF MIND FOR VOTERS.

THIS JUST HAPPENED.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAD JUST THROWN OUT ROE.

THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY PUT THESE BANS AND RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE.

THEN WE HAD AN ELECTION.

SO IT WAS NEVER GOING TO BE MORE IN FRONT OF INDIANA VOTERS THAN IT WAS THEN, SO WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN NOW IF YOU ARE DEMOCRATS, YOU HAVE TO BUILD A CAMPAIGN.

IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS IS OUT OF STEP WITH HOOSIERS, YOU HAVE TO BUILD A CAMPAIGN INTO THAT, AND WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE HOOSIER ELECTORATE IS GOING TO PUNISH REPUBLICANS FOR THAT BAN OR REWARD DEMOCRATS FOR BEING OPPOSED TO IT.

>> SO DO YOU -- >> YET.

>> YOU KEEP SAYING THAT, BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE.

>> HOLD ON.

DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD EXPECT THEN IN THE 2024 LEGISLATIVE SESSION NOT JUST LEGISLATION FILED, BUT LEGISLATION TO MOVE THAT WOULD TAKE AWAY THE EXCEPTIONS FOR CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST?

>> OH, I'M SURE IT WILL BE A PART OF THE ELECTION.

DEMOCRATS ARE ALREADY MAKING IT A PART OF THE ELECTION.

>> BEFORE WE GET TO THE ELECTION, IN THE NEXT SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

>> WELL, WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IS BROUGHT, VOTES CAST.

CERTAINLY THERE WILL BE AN ATTEMPT FOR THAT.

THERE WILL BE AN ATTEMPT TO PUT THE POLITICAL VOTES ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE ESPECIALLY.

>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT MIKE HAS JUST SAID IN TERMS OF A LACK OF ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES REALLY AFTER LAST YEAR AND THE ABORTION BAN WAS PASSED.

AT THE SAME TIME -- I AGREE THAT IT WAS NEVER MORE FRONT OF MIND IN ERMZ IT OF THE HOOSIER VOTERS, BUT IT WASN'T IN EFFECT.

IT WASN'T IN EFFECT.

BE THE BAN AT NO POINT UP UNTIL 30 DAYS FROM NOW ESSENTIALLY WAS EVER REALLY IN EFFECT FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF HOOSIERS.

WE ARE NOW GOING TO HAVE PRESUMABLY MORE THAN A YEAR UNTIL NEXT YEAR'S ELECTION WHERE THE BAN WILL BE IN EFFECT, AND ALMOST NO HOOSIERS HAVE A RIGHT TO ABORTION.

WILL THAT HAVE MORE -- AND IT WILL BE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

>> YES, THAT WILL HAPPEN.

>> THAT'S WHERE I WOULD TAKE ISSUE WHERE YOUR ASSESSMENT, WHICH I THINK IS ON TARGET IN MANY WAYS.

RITTS NOT A REFERENDUM BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, THE CONSEQUENCES HAVEN'T BEEN CLEAR TO THE AVERAGE HOOSIER.

I THINK MOST HOOSIERS WOULD SAY, YEAH, THEY ENACTED A BAN IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

I REMEMBER HEARING OR READING ABOUT SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT NOTHING SEEMS TO HAVE CHANGED.

THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ON HOLD ESSENTIALLY.

AS WE STARTED AT THE OUTSET OF THE SHOW, YOU INDICATED 30 DAYS OR SO THAT IS LIKELY TO CHANGE, AND THAT'S WHEN YOU WILL SEE THE KIND OF COVERAGE THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER STATES THAT ARE FURTHER DOWN THIS PIKE WHERE YOU HAVE WOMEN WHO DIE OR SUFFER SERIOUS HEALTH CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE PHYSICIANS AND EMERGENCY ROOMS ARE TORN.

THEY'RE NOT SURE.

THEY'RE AMBIVALENT, AND THEY'RE UNSURE ABOUT THE STATUTE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THEM AND THEIR ABILITY TO PRACTICE OR THEIR ABILITY TO STAY OUT OF JAIL.

SO I THINK WHEN THOSE TYPES OF REAL WORLD SCENARIOS START TO UNFOLD, IT WOULD HAVE A BIGGER CONSEQUENCE.

ONE OTHER POINT I WOULD MAKE JUST ABOUT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, WILL THEY STILL BE EMBOLDENED TO BRING?

ABSOLUTELY.

LOOK AT KANSAS.

KANSAS MADE HEADLINES NOT LONG AFTER THE DODDS DECISION BY ENSHRINING IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION AT THE BALLOT BOX THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION, AND THAT HASN'T KEPT THE KANSAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM ENACTING LAW AFTER LAW AFTER LAW.

THEY'LL PROBABLY BE STRUCK DOWN AT THE STATE SUPREME COURT LEVEL, BUT THEY'RE STILL BEING ENACTED IN THE FACE OF THAT.

>> JON POINTED OUT THE REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES OF THIS.

WE SEE IT MOST DIRECTLY IN OTHER STATES, AS HE POINTED OUT, IN DOCTORS UNSURE WHAT TO DO.

IS THAT PARTICULARLY POINTED HERE WHERE IF THERE IS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST HINT OF AMBIVALENCE ABOUT WHAT THE LAW WOULD AND WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT DOCTOR TO DO IN THAT SPECIFIC SITUATION, IT'S ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL IS GOING TO ATTACK EVERY DOCTOR WHO HE THINKS MAYBE MIGHT HAVE COME CLOSE TO -- >> HE DOESN'T CARE WHETHER THEY STEP OVER THE LINE.

>> IS THAT GOING TO MAKE DOCTORS EVEN MORE AFRAID THAN THEY ARE IN OTHER STATES?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

NOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS MASSIVE DISCUSSIONS AND CASES AND REAL LIFE EXAMPLES OF WHAT IS A SERIOUS HEALTH RISK?

DOES THAT COUNT MENTAL CHALLENGES?

ALSO, EVEN THE IDEA OF IF THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS AT RISK, IS A MEDICAL INTERPRETATION?

ONE DOCTOR CAN AGREE ONE WAY, AND ANOTHER DOCTOR CAN AGREE ANOTHER WAY.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WILL NOW BE LITIGATED EVERY MINUTE.

JUSTICE MULTER SAID IN THE CASE, HE SAID, YEAH, BRING -- NOT NECESSARILY BRING ON THE CHALLENGES, BUT YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE THESE CASES ON AN APPLIED BASIS WITH SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS OF HOOSIERS.

>> THE ONE GOOD THING ABOUT THIS AND THE WHOLE DISCUSSION SINCE THE SUPREME COURT CASE A YEAR AGO IS THAT I THINK MEN HAVE A MUCH GREATER APPRECIATION OF JUST HOW RISKY PREGNANCY IS.

I MEAN, PEOPLE JUST THINK, WELL, YOU GO AND HAVE THE BABY, NO BIG DEAL.

THERE ARE SO MANY COMPLICATIONS THAT COME FROM THIS THAT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY, WHETHER IT'S AN ATOPIC PREGNANCY, WHATEVER IT IS, THAT COULD RISK THE MOTHER'S LIFE.

ONES THAT ARE CLOSE BUT MAYBE NOT, AND YOU CAN SEE THE DOCTOR STANDING THERE.

WELL, I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THE FETUS, BUT LET'S GO GET A LEGAL OPINION BEFORE I DO THAT.

IT IS CRAZY.

>> AS THE LAWYER ON THE PANEL I WANT TO ASK ABOUT WHAT NIKI JUST TALKED ABOUT.

JUSTICE MULTER WHO WROTE THE OPINION, THE NEWEST JUSTICE, WHICH I THINK SOME OF US FOUND A LITTLE SURPRISING THAT HE WAS THE ONE WHO AUTHORED IT, BUT HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE IS A LOT OF LITIGATION LEFT THAT THIS RULING TODAY DOES NOT ANSWER, AND AS YOU SAID, HE KIND OF INVITED, OKAY, WE WILL TAKE THOSE CASES AS THEY COME TO US, BUT THEY'RE MOSTLY AS APPLIED, WHICH MEANS THERE ACTUALLY HAS TO BE A PERSON GOING THROUGH THIS IN ORDER FOR IT TO GO.

HOW DO YOU LITIGATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHEN YOU HAVE 20 WEEKS AT BEST OR -- >> YOU DON'T.

YOU MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND THE WOMAN DIES OR THE WOMAN LIVES.

THEN YOU GET TODD ROQUITA CHARGING IN ON HIS WHITE HORSE AND SAYING YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT, SECOND GUESSING THE MEDICAL OPINION.

THAT IS WHERE WE'RE REALLY DANGEROUS BECAUSE DOCTORS ARE THREATENED WITH THIS.

THEY'RE THREATENED.

THEY WANT TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT BY THE PATIENT, AND WHAT THE INDIANA -- WELL, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO SECOND GUESS WHATEVER YOU DO.

>> YOU LITIGATE IT ENDLESSLY LIKE WE LITIGATED ROE ENDLESSLY.

AGAINST THE LEGAL RIGHT AND NOW AGAINST THE BANS.

IT WILL BE -- WE'LL BE DOING THIS FOR DECADES.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT ROQUITA IN ROE.

>> TODD IS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

>> WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME JUDGES ON CALL.

I'M BEING SOMEWHAT FASCIOUS THERE, BUT I'M REMINDED OF THE CASE THAT JOHN BAKER, APPELLATE JUDGE, BACK WHEN HE WAS MONROE COUNTY COURT JUDGE, AND WAS PRESENTED WITH THE BABY DOE CASE, WHICH WAS SHOULD THE FAMILY BE ABLE TO GRIEVOUSLY COMPROMISED CHILD WHO WAS NOT GOING TO LIVE, AND SO THE QUESTION WAS SOME SORT OF BIG EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN WHAT WAS TO THWART AN INEVITABLE OUTCOME.

HE WENT IN HIS STUDY AND CHAMBERS WITH LAW BOOKS AND CAME OUT WITH A PRONOUNCEMENT, AND THAT SHAPED HIS CAREER.

HE ROSE TO GREAT -- >> UNDER A DEMOCRAT.

>> IT COULD HAVE SHAPED HIS CAREER AS A REPUBLICAN.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SEEING IN ANY HOSPITAL THAT PERFORMS THESE, I CAN SAY WATCH THE JUDGES AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE BY YOUR PHONE.

>> IT IS RIDICULOUS.

WE SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OF OUR OWN BODIES, PERIOD.

>> SPEAKING OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, BUT NOT THE INDIANA ONE, INDIANA UNIVERSITY REACTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S DECISION THIS WEEK TO END AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.

ADMISSIONS.

>> SO THERE'S NO ROOM TO ARGUE THAT DIVERSE -- >> SUPPORTERS OF THE PRACTICE ARGUE IT'S ESSENTIAL FOR CREATING A DIVERSE STUDENT BODY.

JENNIFER MASON McAWARD IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW AT NOTRE DAME.

SHE SAYS THE COURT TOOK AN ABSOLUTIST APPROACH TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

>> SO THERE'S NO ROOM TO ARGUE THAT DIVERSITY IS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE TO DO THIS.

THERE'S NO ROOM TO ARGUE THAT REALLY THESE PROGRAMS MIGHT HELP CERTAIN APPLICANTS.

THE COURT JUST COMES UP WITH A VERY CLEAR LINE SAYING YOU JUST CAN'T DO THIS.

>> SEVERAL UNIVERSITIES ISSUED STATEMENTS INDICATING THEY INTEND TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

INDIANA UNIVERSITY ADDED THAT IT WAS COMMITTED TO FOSTERING A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT WITH, QUOTE, A BROAD RANGE OF BACKGROUNDS.

>> MIKE O'BRIEN, GOVERNOR HOLCOMB WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS THE DAY IT CAME OUT.

HE SAID I HAVEN'T READ IT AND THAT I DON'T WANT TO BE ALOOF, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO BE CONCERNED WITH INDIANA'S UNIVERSITIES.

IS HE RIGHT?

>> HE IS RIGHT IF THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS SOLELY ON RACE.

I ASSUME THEY WEREN'T.

IT'S A LOT OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO ADMISSION.

ACTUALLY, I APPRECIATE -- THERE'S A LOT OF HYPERBOLE ON BOTH SIDES TO THE EXTREMES ON RACE OR SEX DISCRIMINATION, BUT I THOUGHT YOU MIKE PENCE HAD A GOOD REACTION AS THE ONLY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE I THINK THAT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WAS A TIME FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

HE JUST DISAGREES THAT IT'S STILL THE TIME FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

HE WAS REALLY THE ONLY CANDIDATE I SAW THAT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED THERE WAS A CREDIBLE ARGUMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AT SOME POINT IN THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES.

JOE BIDEN, OF COURSE, PRESIDENT BIDEN CAME OUT AND BLASTED THE OPINION, OF COURSE, BUT THEN APPEALED TO UNIVERSITIES TAKING -- WHAET THE WORD HE USED?

DIFFICULTY IN LIFE.

JUST DIFFICULTY IN LIFE GENERALLY.

ARE YOU ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED, OR ARE YOU DISADVANTAGED FROM THE PART OF THE COUNTRY YOU'RE IN?

WE ALWAYS THINK ABOUT URBAN BLACK STUDENTS WHEN WE THINK ABOUT UPPER MOBILITY AND ADMISSION TO COLLEGE, AND THATS TRUE FOR A LOT OF REASONS.

BLACK ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, FAILING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BAD HEALTH OUTCOMES.

EVERYTHING THAT GOES INTO YOUR ABILITY TO MOVE UPWARD ON THE ECONOMIC SCALE.

THAT'S TRUE IN RURAL AMERICA NOW TOO, OR AS IT WASN'T A GENERATION AGO.

I'VE SAID ON THE SHOW SEVERAL TIMES THAT AS WE COME UP WITH THESE ISSUES OF MENTAL HEALTH, MATERNAL HEALTH THAT RURAL INDIANA AND URBAN INDIANA ARE DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF YOUR OPPORTUNITIES TO GET OUT OF THOSE PLACES.

ADVERSITY WAS THE TERM THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN USED.

YOU CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ADVERSITY.

I THINK THAT'S A NOBLE WAY TO LOOK AT THAT, AND I'M NOT OFFENDED BY THAT AT ALL BECAUSE IT DOES REQUIRE -- I THINK WHAT MIKE PENCE WAS ALOUDING TO IS THIS IS APPROPRIATE AT THE TIME.

IT'S BECOME A FAIRLY BLUNT REASON TO ADMIT SOMEBODY INTO SCHOOL AND NOT WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION MODERN CHALLENGES THAT KEEP YOU FROM GOING TO WHERE YOU ARE AT IN LIFE TO WHERE YOU ARE TRYING TO GO.

>> I WAS STRUCK BY THE RULING.

I THINK I'M GETTING THIS RIGHT IN THAT THE COURT JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS DIDN'T SAY YOU CAN'T CONSIDER RACE IN ANY WAY.

HE IS SIMPLY SAYING THESE POLICIES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT RACE AS SO MANY -- ARE SO MANY PARTS OF WHO A PERSON IS CAN BE CONSIDERED.

IS IT REALLY GOING -- IN TERMS OF HOW CATASTROPHIC OR NOT THIS RULING'S IMPACT WOULD BE, IS IT REALLY GOING TO BE UP TO THE INSTITUTIONS NOW TO SAY ARE WE COMMITTED TO GIVING PEOPLE A LEG UP AND WEIGHING THAT IN OUR ADMISSIONS DECISIONS, WHOEVER THE PERSON IS OR NOT?

>> I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE, AND I THINK THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS FROM INSTITUTIONS SAYING THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO, WHICH IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THAT HIGHER EDUCATION IS THE STEPPING STONE TO MILLINGED CLASS.

WHEN YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENED, LIKE IN CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, THE NUMBER OF MINORITY STUDENTS GRADUATING FROM CALIFORNIA INSTITUTIONS DROPPED BY 40%, SO THAT IS CONCERNING.

SO IF THEY CAN FIND A WAY -- >> YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSER TO HOME.

NOT 40ERS%, BUT A SIMILAR DRAW.

>> THERE YOU GO.

IF THEY CAN LOOK AT THE DISADVANTAGES IN THE BACKGROUND, WHICH INCLUDE RACE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IS TALKING ABOUT AN AMERICA THAT WE'RE NOT IN YET.

THERE ARE RESIDUAL EFFECTS FROM SLAVERY AND RACISM.

THERE ARE.

YOU CAN BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND THINK THIS IS UTOPIA.

IT IS NOT.

WE NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.

IF WE DO IT THROUGH THIS METHOD OF LOOKING AT WHAT THE DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS ARE AND IT DOESN'T RESULT IN SMALLER NUMBERS OF MINORITIES GETTING ACCESS TO THAT MIDDLE CLASS, OKAY, BUT I THINK IT'S CONCERNING THAT EVERY INSTITUTION FOLLOWS THOSE KIND OF GUIDELINES.

>> THAT'S THE TRICKY PART WITH THIS IS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT'S RULING ON ABORTION?

WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO START SEEING THAT ONCE THE BAN FULLY TAKES EFFECT RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

WITH THIS ONE IT COULD BE A DECADE BEFORE WE REALLY START TO SEE HARD NUMBERS THAT SHOW AN IMPACT, RIGHT?

>> YEAH.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY AT LEAST FOUR YEARS, RIGHT, UNTIL YOU START GETTING GRADUATION NUMBERS AND COLLEGE DEGREES.

I DO THINK THERE ARE ROUTES OUT THERE FOR COLLEGES TO STILL HAVE A XHIPT.

I THINK INCOME LEVEL, POVERTY LEVEL IS A BIG ONE THAT THEY CAN PROBABLY FOCUS MORE ON IN TERMS OF -- AND THAT WILL GET AT THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE.

>> BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED MORE THAN WHITE COMMUNITIES.

>> I THINK IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE THE UNIVERSITIES RECRAFT THEY ARE POLICIES IN A WAY THAT STILL TRIES TO DIVERSIFY THE STUDENT POPULATION.

>> I'M STRUCK BY THIS IN TERMS THAT IT FEELS A LOT MORE LIKE IT FALLS ON INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTIONS TO STEP UP IF THEY'RE GOING TO REALLY BE COMMITTED TO PROVIDING FOLKS THAT STEP UP THE ECONOMIC LADDER OR NOT, BUT IT ALSO STRIKES ME THAT A LOT OF THE IMPACT OF THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE NEARLY AS BROAD AS I THINK SOME ARE TRYING TO DO BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN INDIANA AND ACROSS THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE REALLY SELECTIVE IN THEIR ADMISSIONS POLICIES IS RELATIVELY SMALL WHETHER YOU CONSIDER ALL THE PEOPLE WHO GO TO COLLEGES.

MOST COLLEGES LET MOST PEOPLE IN, AND THIS ISN'T REALLY GOING TO IMPACT THOSE SCHOOLS.

>> LOOK AT I UNDERSTAND END.

THE NUMBERS I SAW, THERE ARE NEEN INSTITUTIONS, NINE CAMPUSES THAT ARE USING THIS AS PART OF A METRIC OF ADMISSION, AND THAT WOB THE MAIN CAMPUSES OF IU AND PURDUE.

NOT NECESSARILY THE ANCILLARY CAMPUSES, WHICH IS INTERESTING.

NOTRE DAME, WHICH I FIND INTERESTING BECAUSE THEY HAD FILED A FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF SUPPORTING THE STATUS QUO, WHICH WAS CLEARLY OPPOSITE ALUMNI AND FORMER PROFESSOR AMY CONEY-BARRETT.

TO THAT EXTENT IT MIGHT NOT AFFECT MUCH, BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT QUOTAS AND THAT KIND OF RIDGED CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN OFF THE TABLE SINCE THE BOPPY DECISION BACK IN THE LATE '70s.

THAT'S OUT NOW, SO NOW WE ARE DOWN TO SORT OF USING RACE AS ONE OF THE MANY FACTORS.

JUST AS WE TALKED ABOUT ABORTION BEING A BIT OF THIS OR THAT INTERPRETATION, HERE WHEN DOES ADVERSITY THAT'S A HARD DES IKZ TO DRAW WHEN RACISM IS PART OF WHY I DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS OTHERS, AND I HAVE OVERCOME THAT ADVERSITY.

I CAN SEE PEOPLE -- I CAN SEE MAJORITY STUDENTS AT SELECT INSTITUTIONS FILING SUIT SAYING THAT SO AND SO GOT A BREAK EVEN IN THE FACE OF THIS DECISION THAT CHEATED ME, THE MAJORITY APPLICANT.

SO THIS IS NOT THE END OF THIS BY ANY STRETCH.

>> WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO IS HAVE MORE SUNLTIVE CRITERIA.

LESS RELEANS ON STANDARDIZED TEST AND STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY.

THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, TOO, IS THAT 40% DROP IN CALIFORNIA, HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE STUDENTS WHO WOULD HAVE APPLIED OR DANT REPLY BECAUSE MAYBE THEY THOUGHT THEY WEREN'T WELCOME OR MAYBE THEY THOUGHT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE.

THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT IT'S KIND OF HARD TO QUANTIFY.

>> THAT'S GOING TO BE NOW RELIANT ON THE STATE AND THE COMMISSION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND THINGS LEAK THAT TO NOT JUST KEEP TRACK, BUT TO GO INTO THOSE COMMUNITIES AND SAY, NO, THIS I STILL IMPORTANT IF THIS IS THE PATH YOU WANT FOR YOURSELF, AND YOU SHOULD STILL APPLY, AND YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GO TO THESE SCHOOLS.

WE JUST SAW THE 21st CENTURY SCHOLARS PROGRAM.

NOW EVERYONE WHO IS ELIGIBLE WILL BE SIGNED UP.

THAT WILL HELP.

>> IT WILL HELP.

>> IT DOES EXEMPT THE SERVICE ACADEMY.

DRAW ANY CONCLUSION YOU WANT.

>> EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNSCIENTIFIC ONLINE POLL QUESTION, AND THIS WEEK'S QUESTION IS WAS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RIGHT TO END AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

A, YES, OR B, NO.

LAST WEEK'S QUESTION, SHOULD INDIANA LEGALIZE CANNABIS IN SOME FORM?

21% OF YOU SAY YES, BUT ONLY FOR MEDICINAL USE.

72% SAY YES, FULL ADULT RECREATIONAL USE, AND JUST 7% DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE LEGALIZED IN ANY FORM.

GO TO WFYI.ORG/IWIR AND LOOK FOR THE POLL TO TAKE PART.

>> WELL, I UNDERSTANDNDIANA LAWS ARE LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS FOLLOWING A REPORT THAT SOME SCHOOLS AREN'T ACCURATELY REPORTING HOW FREQUENTLY THEY ISOLATE AND RESTRAIN STUDENTS.

THE DATA THAT DOES EXIST IS INACCESSIBLE TO MOST HOOSIERS.

LEE GAINS REPORTS THAT LAWMAKERS WANT MORE OVERSIGHT AND PROTECTION FOR STUDENTS.

>> INDIANA SCHOOLS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT HOW OFTEN THEY RESTRAIN AND SECLUDE KIDS TO THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BUT SOME SCHOOLS AREN'T ACCURATELY REPORTING THIS INFORMATION, AND THE DATA THAT IS REPORTED IS NEARLY ON IMPOSSIBLE FOR PARENTS TO FIND.

REPRESENTATIVE ED DELANEY SAYS THE STATE NEEDS TO MAKE THIS INFORMATION EASILY ACCESSIBLE.

>> THAT'S A NO-BRAINER.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANT ALL THIS DATA AVAILABLE.

I WANT PARENTS OF KIDS WHO ARE DID HES ABLED TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS EASILY.

>> DELANEY AND INDIANAPOLIS DEMOCRAT SAYS HE PLANS TO WORK WITH THE INDIANA DEPARTMNT OF EDUCATION TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO HOLD SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE FOR FAILING TO REPORT THIS INFORMATION TO THE STATE.

>> JON SCHWANTES, DOES THIS REQUIRE A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION, OR IS IT REALLY JUST BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS?

>> YES IS THE GLIB ANSWER.

YOU WANT TO THINK THAT ENFORCEMENT IS -- PRESUMABLY WE HAVE THE STATUTES AND THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE AND SUPPOSEDLY IT SEEMS THEY ARE BEING IGNORED OR HAVE BEEN SO MANY IMPET MEANTS OR HURDLES HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE WAY OF PEOPLE WHO WANT THIS INFORMATION.

IT'S DE FACTO PROHIBITION ON RELEASE OF THIS INFORMATION.

IF THERE WERE ADHERENCE TO THE GUIDE LOOIPS AND STATUTES IN PLACE, THEN THAT'S THE ANSWER.

IF THAT STILL DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM, THE REASON I SAY YES, THEN THAT DOES REQUIRE A SOLUTION BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ACCOUNT ACT AND TRANSPARENCY AND DID HES CLOSURE ON ALL THINGS ACADEMIC FOR DECADES.

WHAT YOUR CURRICULUM IS, WHAT YOUR TEXTBOOK IS.

WE HAVE PEOPLE SAYING IF YOU HEAR MY CHILD WANT TO USE A DIFFERENT PRONOUN, THEN REPORT THIS.

BUT WHAT COULD BE MORE PROFOUND THAN PHYSICALLY RESTRAINING SOMEBODY AND FORCIBLY ISOLATING SOMEBODY?

TO ME THAT'S FAR MORE FUNDAMENTALLY CONCERNING POTENTIALLY THAN EVERYTHING ELSE I JUST MENTIONED.

>> MIKE, THE ORIGINAL LAW THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE THE TRANSPARENCY HERE WAS A BIPARTISAN SOLUTION.

LAWMAKERS HAVE BEEN NIBBLING AROUND THE EDGES OF ISOLATION AND SECLUSION RESTRAINT FOR A WHILE NOW.

DOES THIS SHEEN AINE A BRIGHTER FOCUS ON THE LEGISLATURE GOING INTO THIS AREA?

>> THE TEACHERS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE SITUATION NEED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THAT LEGISLATIVE FIGHT TOO BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING RESTRAINED BECAUSE THEY'RE CAUSING PHYSICAL HARM TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS.

THAT'S WHY THEY'RE BEING RESTRAINED, AND YOU ARE PUTTING TEACHERS IN AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT SITUATION TO MAKE A DISCRETIONARY CALL IN THAT MOMENT AND THEN CALL FOR OTHER RESOURCES TO THAT ROOM TO RESTRAIN THOSE STUDENTS.

THEY NEED HELP IN THAT TOO.

>> BECAUSE IN A LOT OF CASES THESE ARE SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS AS WELL, AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT ON THE SHOW BEFORE, WE ARE STRUGGLING LIKE MANY STATES TO FIND SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS.

>> BECAUSE IT'S A RISKY PROFESSION.

>> IT IS A VERY CHALLENGING PROFESSION ON TOP OF AN ALREADY VERY CHALLENGING PROFESSION.

IS IT TIME FOR MORE OF A LEGISLATIVE LOOK AT THIS AGAIN?

>> I THINK THEY NEED TO LOOK AT THE RESOURCES.

HE THIS NEED TO LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS, BUT THE TRANSPARENCY HAS TO BE THERE.

THE PARENTS HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THIS.

THEY HAVE TO BE AWARE OF IT.

YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT.

I MEAN, YOU WANT TO HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES THERE THAT A TEACHER CAN DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CHILD, WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CLASS AND ALSO INFORM PEOPLE WHO NEED TO KNOW.

>> THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY, REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN, JON SCHWANTES OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS, NECKIKI KELLY OF THE INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE.

YOU CAN FIND MORE ON 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 OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS.

INDIANA WEEK