>> Victoria Spartz about face on reelection, wetlands protections further eroded, plus Todd Rokita's Education Eye and more.

From the television studios at WFYI, it's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending February 9, 2024.

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

>> This week, US rep resented if Victoria Spartz reversed her decision not to run for another term in Congress.

WFYI's Jill Sheridan reports, the Republican legislator now joins a crowded field of candidates vying for the seat.

>> Victoria Spartz announced last year that she would not seek reelection in Indiana's fifth district saying she wanted to spend more time with her family, now the Ukrainian born congresswoman says after talking to constituents in considering the current political environment she feels her work is not done.

In a statement, she says quote " As someone who grew up under Tierney I understand the significance of these challenging times for our Republicans.." LE said others have announced their candidacies, she covers the fifth district in Hamilton, Delaware, Madison County's in 20, Madison County's in 2020.

Indians primary elections on May 7.

>> Will this reversal hurt her chance at reelection?

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

Democrat Lindsay Haik, publican Mike O'Brien, Oseye Boyd, editor in chief of mirror in Indiana, and Niki Kelly.

I'm Brandon Smith, Lindsay Haik, how will voters feel about this?

>> I guess we will tell, and more portly how will primary voters feel?

All is fair in love war and primaries.

I tell you the only Tierney here for me is an ineffective, indecisive legislator who clearly sees her name dimming in the lights and simply wants to get back in.

I don't see, as a former constituent whose emails were never answered, it's tough for me to have any, any inch of reason to support the woman.

>> I'm of two minds about how voters will view this.

Really, how it will affect her chances.

Because on the one hand you've got to think the flip flopping decision-making makes her seem a little erratic along with a lot of other things she says and does.

But on the other hand how many people are going to go to the polling place not knowing about all that and will just go " I recognize that name."

>> That does give her an advantage in an 11 way primary but primaries are also, they are small elections.

Small groups of people that talk a lot, so 10 other people out there talking about this, including Chuck Goodrich which is one of her biggest supporters.

And who got in kind of with her blessing.

So that's even more bizarre about this, he kind of got sold out by her.

That she is pulling the rug out from under him.

We will see if it makes a difference.

She's all ready put $1 million into the campaign, real decisions have been made, he is a sitting officeholder who now can't go back and run for State House.

If we knew this six month ago, you would have different decisions to make, don't burn 7 million decisions to make, don't burn $7 million on a fire and put this off for another day but it's unfortunate.

We were hearing it for weeks though that she was back and forth, in these rooms and out in D.C., telling her colleagues in Congress that she was actually going to run it again, but as early as two hours before she announced she was going to run said she wasn't.

To Chuck Goodrich.

So I mean, it's bizarre.

>> To that end, is this about to get real nasty up in that primary?

>> I think so, sounds like it.

Because you have what sounds like could be interparty disagreements.

I will say fightig, I will say disagreements.

>> I'll say fighting!

>> Also disagreement but definitely seems like there's turmoil in the party.

Voters, are they going to be served by her?

That would be my concern is a voter.

Am I going to be best served by someone who - seems to go back and forth?

Does she really want to serve in this capacity or not?

But the party, definitely there's going to be a lot going on with the Republican party.

>> Let's talk about that a little bit, which is as a voter, as a constituent of hers, this isn't the only time where her decision-making doesn't seem to be clear all the time.

She is, I think it's fair to say, a wildcard when she is voting out in D.C.. You are never quite sure where she's going to be on an issue until right towards the end.

Are voters-- are there some voters were going to like that though about her?

>> I mean, I don't know if a lot of sort of average voters will know about the flip- flopping.

I think what's more important is that she's burning so many bridges.

Even if she is reelected, I'm not sure how effective she will be.

Mayors are coming out against her, in her own district.

>> Her own town.

>> The same day she announced.

>> Exactly.

I think she put herself in a terrible position as well as all those other people who have made decisions based on her Word.

>> Each week we post a poll question this one is will Victoria Spartz is about face hurt her with voters?

A, yes or B, no.

Last week we said should child care be available, look for the poll online.

Controversial bill that reduced protections for the state wetlands is headed to Eric Holcomb's desk this week, is called a compromise but the history of India is wetlands law as well as testimony from wetland advocates suggest it's anything but.

Indiana publicly broadcasting Rebecca-- Rebecca Thiele says it will phone to class III, the only class that did lose significant protections when the state change its wetlands law in 2021.

>> That change also created wetlands task force to find balance between advocates, regulators and developers.

But the member rep sending homebuilders didn't show up to the meetings.

Now, two years later the State Department of environmental management and developers say they struck a compromise in this latest bill.

Get wetland advocates say they weren't informed.

In light of US Supreme Court decision, still she didn't vote for the bill.

>> I think it has some serious short comings which might have been resolved had everyone been a part of the discussions.

>> After about three years of debate, it's unclear when Indiana will reach a true compromise with all stakeholders at the table.

>> Mike O'Brien, are you buying that this is a compromise?

>> Like passing a ban on guns and asking if you consulted the NRA.

Why bother?

What's the point?

Remember, the where this started.

IDM came out on a farmer replacing a drain tile on a field he'd been farming for 100 years, so when you have that overreaction what we've seen in the last four years is a reaction to that, including this.

I think there were eight Republicans voted no on this and think maybe clearly that situation four years ago was too far but maybe now we've crossed the line the other direction.

They will find a balance somewhere, but it does remain-- it does need to be reminded of folks that we are still with this bill.

In the top six regular did wetland states in the country.

Having a state based wetlands bill all ready put us ahead of the majority of states.

So the hyperbole and the alarmists on the environmental left is predictable, but I think they are trying to find a place where how do you find a rational regulatory environment to protect the guy who wants to develop his land and the environment-- the environmental impact of that development.

>> Lindsay, I think you would be classified as someone who is considered the environmental left, do you think it's alarmist to say this is going to harm wetlands?

>> No, absolutely not, frankly that's a dog whistle, sorry, got to call you out on it.

If that were the case, if this were simply an issue of a tile being replaced on a farmer's land, that I don't think we would see the building Association and the Apartment Association in the hallways watching this bill come through and sail over the house.

I'm sorry, but I've got to throw the special interest.

>> That could be because of the housing crisis and environmental Galatian-- >> That being co-opted is also incredibly convenient, so the reason this is off-topic is because Indiana has so many wetlands and all of our land is just besotted with them and this friendly an opportunity for our great resource, our best resource, our water.

For that to be thrown into a conversation about a compromise, I reject that.

>> The thing I think that is missed sometimes because the average person goes environmental concers, that's overblown.

This is about improving or protecting us against floods, about filtering our water, which we talk a lot about water in the last year or so in this state, and will continue to for a while here.

Is that message not eating through to lawmakers necessarily on this one?

Because it does seem like, to Mike's point, we talked about this before, it feels like the pendulum has swung a little far on this.

>> I think this is one of the issues that's really hard to show an immediate impact.

Like, you know, saying well, if we get rid of wetlands we are going to flood more, that's like in the future and its conceptual land you know, we don't have any proof, per se.

>> Flooding more generally.

>> Yeah.

So I think it's just hard to pin down an exact impact and get people to buy into it.

>> You know, you poll on stuff like this and people say that-- but it's really to your point you say yes, I care about the environment, I'm concerned about the environment, unconcerned about flooding, I'm concerned about climate change, on the other hand the other side gets to go "But we need more houses."

is that part of the sort of disconnect over this bill to?

>> Houses or warehouses?

What are we actually going to build?

I think part of it is to like we said, we don't know what's flooding, what is more flooding?

What does that look like?

What do wetlands really do?

I don't think the average person really knows what wetlands do.

I'm the average person.

I know a little bit about wetlands, I know we do need them, so I do think it is-- but it took me a while to kind of learn about wetlands and do a lot of research and I don't know if the average person is going to do that.

But it does seem shortsighted.

Because as we continue to decrease the wetlands, we are going to see more repercussions and we may not understand those until they happen.

That's the problem.

>> I want to ask you, you mention something right at the end which is we still need to find more of a balance on this issue.

But is it going to be too late?

Is it already too late?

>> I don't know if we do need to find a balance on the issue, you know where we rank in terms of the regular nations that we will see what the impact is.

Senate Bill 389?

Pass the 600,000 acres of wetland, how many do we lose?

A fraction of a percent.

It was an extreme reaction.

>> That's not a bad thing though, keep wetlands.

It's not-- >> What Lindsay would argue, I think and what she just argued is that these bills go far the other direction, to the point where we don't protect wetlands.

That's just not been proven to be true at least in Senate Bill 389.

>> And part of that legislation, as well as another legislation is short of 50, at least for the first time I can remember, trying to get at least some incentive to potecting and preserving some wetlands to.

>> Conservation has been a great hallmark call to action from both parties.

And that's essentially why you had some groups involved in this that weren't at the table before, or who were brought into the table as we shoved towards the Governor's office to ask to veto during 389 you had folks coming in to the conversation like the Audubon Society come up people that had previously been targeted in this way, so absolutely.

>> A controversial program launched by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita allows anyone to submit to a public online site examples of race, gender and political ideology being taught in schools throughout the state.

Indiana Public Broadcasting Violet Comber-Wilen report some school districts are already exposing concerts with document on the portal.

>> The I zone education platform allows all Hoosier's to submit photos, screenshots and recitation material-- presentation material that the office describes as inappropriate.

The Office of the Attorney General says it will investigate material and complaints of it into the portal, several School District have material on the portals have since released a statement saying the information is outdated and incorrect, and many like Noblesville school said they weren't aware of the site or the document on or prior to its release.

Some have also expressed concerns how this information might affect teaching environment and may cause teachers to feel less supported.

The Indiana State teachers Association said in a statement this portal will create division between parents and educators and would target public schools.

>> Thank you, Kelly.

Does it appear at least initially that these submissions were vetted in any way?

>> From talking to the Attorney General's office, what we are told as they are vetted kind of where they came from, who they came from, that they are real people who submitted them, but they did go to the schools and say "Is this real?."

there are some documents on there that are very clearly what we would call primary documents, they say at the top what School District is, whatever.

It's a primary document.

But there are a lot of other submissions that are just random.

There's a picture of a quiz-- >> A blurry screenshot of a computer screen.

>> A quiz that doesn't say what School District it's from or out of context or here's a picture of a classroom where a flag hangs.

How do I know that's a classroom in Kokomo?

Had I know that's not in Nevada?

So I do think there are some questions about some of the other items up.

This one against IU medicine that is literally just-- >> It's literally just "I heard.

heard.." >> I heard from one person, not even naming them.

>> Other than Todd Rokita wanting attention, which you have to say most-- >> Which you always have to start with.

>> That's the floor.

What in your mind is the point of this?

>> That's what I've been wondering but I want to go back to the vetted question for a moment, because I also want to know, is this true?

Just because the real person doesn't mean it's true.

So when I think of it is this actually true?

And also what is the purpose and what are you going to do with this information other than putting it out here and creating confusion and trauma?

That's all it seems to be for me is creating confusion and drama.

I don't see a real purpose behind it.

I'm curious to know what's going to happen with this.

Are teachers going to be fired?

School District held accountable to what?

It just seems very confusing other than a new way to create conflict between teachers, school districts in their communities.

>> Let's even go beyond the "Is it even true.

", the one with the quiz because there was a couple things submitted from that quiz site.

Something on that because context feels like it matters here.

I'm familiar with the site because I think it's a really interesting tool, it's a site available for anyone and it's been around for years and years where you can answer questions on a range of political positions and issues.

And at the end of it it would tell you " Here's where you-- >> Kind of where you fall?

>> " Is where you fall in the ideological spectrum?."

here's what you align most with on a percentage basis, Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump on either end.

I think that's a really interesting tool that I could see being useful in a government class, in high school.

But the way it's presented online is they asked about abortion, how dare they, they are teaching abortion or something like that.

What are we doing?

>> That's the question I have.

What is the point?

And you do have to make the assumption that the point is to just set this on fire, it's like bad Facebook group.

You're going to have this unchecked stuff being said, people fighting with each other, I mean why do this?

Other then you are just trolling the far right that is constantly offended and thinks they are constantly under attack.

>> Obviously you are working for Desteni Lewis, on the Democratic side.

But obviously this speaks to Todd Rokita's face.

What is he going to start really taking off folks in the general election, who are saying what is this guy talking about?

>> I think we are already there, as Hoosier's, as Hoosier women, we are all used to our rights being taken, frankly up for discussion and up for grabs.

We saw that in the special session in SP1 in 2022, I'm not surprised that my kids are now being weaponized to in this conversation.

And that this is just another campaign opportunity for Todd Rokita.

Realize that sounds a little partisan, but Mike is here to make my points for me on this.

>> The last point I make is he's also going to win by 15 points.

Early production.

>> We shall see.

>> Medical providers say prior authorization creates administrative burdens for them and barriers to care for their patients, Indiana public broadcasting's Abigail Ruhman reports a GOP priority bill that will heavily limit the use of prior authorization.

Speak my prior authorization refers to requiring preapproval before receiving medical care which is a barrier for receiving care for many Hoosier but Senator leader Brodrick-- Rodric Bray says something can be done.

>> We been work on this rather feverishly and there's some issues of whether this will add the cost.

>> Bill in this form will come back the sessions of the reporting requirement might appear another pieces of legislation.

>> Oseye Boyd, this is quite a piece of legislation, our use buys nothing of it made it through the first half?

>> I will never use the word surprised.

Confused, befuddled, confounded maybe but not surprised.

Especially since it was a priority bill that it did-- nothing came from this?

What does surprise me I guess I should say is the fact that we know that prior authorization is annoying at best, cumbersome at best.

For many Hoosier Macs it is a delay in lifesaving treatment.

As we've been thinking about healthcare and things and ways of improving healthcare and nothing came of this is a little disappointed.

A lot disappointing, I should say.

Not a little, very much disappointed that nothing moved from this bill, that was a priority bill.

We are using Medicaid and we don't want the deficit of Medicaid to affect that.

Now, I would like to know how.

I want more information on how you think this would affect it.

Are you saying this because you think maybe prior authorization would stop people on Medicaid from having surgeries or some lifesaving treatment immediately so you want to kind of delay that to save money?

I would like to know more about what's going on because I think we haven't really heard the truth about why the build and move.

>> To that point-- >> I was going to say I could take that one if you want.

>> To that point though, and the bill was in committee and sailed out of committee and never appeared in appropriations.

So we've never really-- >> It's a good bill.

>> We've never really had that in the public wing this session.

Speaker Mike that's the crazy part, they just gave up on it like so easy, they didn't even try on that one.

Why would you put it out there if you weren't going to fight for it?

I do think the concern on the Medicaid side is that, you know, let's put it, prior authorization stops some procedures and tests and things like that.

Some of them are needed, obviously I think over time some aren't, so their concern is that if all of a sudden there's nothing backstopping that we are going to have a lot more procedures, tests that the state is going to have to pay for through Medicaid that we are being blocked by prior authorization.

>> We asked Rodric Bray this if the Medicaid shortfall didn't exist and we didn't just find out we had a $984 shortfall on Medicaid-- $984 million shortfall on Medicaid, is a conversation on this bill different and he said absolutely.

You think that's true?

>> I think the entire conversation around healthcare in the state house is the elephant in the room, frankly in this place into a.

You've got the frankly unfolding human care issue that taints House Bill 386 which is the FS SA, fail like that.

I never see the bill fail like that.

- Is a huge-- it's an underlying issue that will affect this bill and maybe already have.

Maybe that's why this build and move forward because it was another bill that had the statute over that we can attack and try to get something done about this.

FS SA, leading disabled kids-- oh well, let's talk about that.

>> Obviously it's a non-budget session but even on next year's budget session it feels like right now lawmakers are operating from a place of fear about the budget implications of Medicaid and the fact that it's growing so much.

Is that going to change between now and a year from now?

>> On this bill, the problem with this bill is a came out on a Friday and was heard on Wednesday morning and no one had any data, the state could really answer-- this is going to have an impact, but what's the impact going to be?

We will have to get back to you.

And I it was like, when are they going to get back?

And we talked about this a lot prior authorization in the Medicaid program is more like a heads up to the managed care companies that are responsible for the care of that member so they have to know if a woman is heading to the hospital to have a baby, they have to know that and they have to know that because they are providing a lot of other services around just paying for the delivery.

Now we gotta make sure the benefits are turned on for the kid that the kid has coverage, we are doing follow-up care, because no one goes to one Doctor anymore who has a complete view of the continuum of all the care they are receiving.

I kind of think about prior authorization, Winston Churchill thought about democracy, the worst system except all the other ones.

The insurance industry which I work in, is paying the price for this clunky system that no one has put any real - effort into making any better.

>> Finally this weekend is of course the superb owl, the Super Bowl, starting with Lindsay Haik, who are you picking?

The Chiefs and the 49ers, really filling in for Ann DeLaney.

>> Taylor Swift wins.

>> That's often the case.

>> If I don't say the Chiefs, I've got a 15-year-old daughter then will be happy.

>> I'm going to go with the 49ers.

>> You don't like the 49ers.

You are a Bengals fan?

>> I can't for the 49ers, they beat my Bengals twice so go Chiefs!

>> I want to say I think the 49ers are the better team but I'm tired picking of the Chiefs because Patrick Mahon is a wizard.

>> Am still getting of the Lions loss.

>> That's Indiana Week in Review for this week, our panel is Democrat Lindsay Haik, Republican Mike O'Brien, Oseye Boyd of mirror Indy, and Niki Kelly of Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Review's podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR or on the PBS App, I'm Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting, join us next time because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

>> The opinions expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is a WFYI p