The Rush Limbaugh/sluts/contraception/sex debate has flared. And birth control and condoms are being discussed on a daily basis. This recent batch of arguments, amendments announcements and speeches when it comes to the rights of women highlights how starkly unequal it still is in some instances.

Thankfully, the Senate voted last week to table the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed any insurance provider to withhold services he or she found to violate their moral or religious beliefs. This amendment was created after President Obama announced insurance providers, even those of religious affiliations (think schools and hospitals, not churches), would have to provide contraception. Many argued this was unconstitutional; it forced religious organizations to provide services they did not agree with. President Obama, after fierce criticism from the right and some on the left, altered this proposal. His policy now states that the organizations do not have to provide contraceptives through their insurance, but those seeking them can obtain them through their insurance provider. Many felt like this was not enough, and that the president was attacking religion. So, the Blunt Amendment was introduced.

But what about the attack on women? I realize this has been a popular topic of discussion in recent weeks, and many arguments have been made for both sides. However, the College and Young Democrats of Iowa, with two women on its executive board, would never make a decision about women without consulting them. But that is exactly what the House of Representatives did, when their panel of “experts” to testify  on this issue consisted of only white males. How are men the experts when getting to make decisions about women’s bodies?  No matter your beliefs on issues like abortion and contraceptives, I do not understand how people disagreeon the fact that decisions about women should involve them.

Birth control is used by a lot of young women, and not just to avoid getting pregnant. Ask any girl, and either they or a friend have used it for menstrual regulation, to help their skin, or to alleviate cramps and other bodily pain. Contrary to many on the right, allowing women access to birth control is not “paying for them to have sex,” in a lot of cases it is helping with a monthly condition that the “experts” on the subject have never experienced. Not supporting birth control is not a straight attack on women’s rights, but trying to ban it without their opinion, consent or input is.

As Senator Bernie Sanders said “If the senate had 83 women and 17 men instead of 83 men and 17 women, my strong guess is a bill like this would never make it to the floor.”

So, think about that when assessing women’s role in our society.

Republican Governor Terry Branstad has asked the Department of Transportation (DOT) to reduce spending by $50 million this year, yet Secretary Schultz’s bill, if passed, would cause revenue loss and increased spending by the DOT. This is because the bill would require the state to issue free IDs to anyone who needed one. A study by the Iowa State Association of County Auditors suggests that issuing free IDs would cost the state $420,660 and issuing free birth certificates would cost over one million dollars. A similar law in Wisconsin has cost taxpayers there an estimated eight million dollars to implement, and total costs might likely be similar if passed in Iowa.

In addition, costs will be passed on to public and private universities and colleges around the state. It is not a standard practice to include expiration dates on college IDs, a requirement of the bill for students wishing to use them to vote. Iowa’s public universities and community colleges are already feeling the strain from reduced state funding, and this bill may force the schools to further reduce valuable educational resources. Private universities and colleges are not immune either, and will feel the pinch from these new expenditures to make their IDs “poll ready”. High schools, another segment of education hit hard by state budget cuts, would also need to modify their IDs to comply with the bill.

A hidden cost of the bill is the inconvenience passed on to students and any other residents without IDs. In explaining the bill, Secretary Schultz noted that he has worked with Rock the Vote to increase student voter turnout, however, this bill would have the opposite effect. Students are already often dissuaded from voting because of the perceived difficulty of registering, locating their precincts, and researching the candidates or issues. This bill would add a further requirement that voters must travel to a DOT office weeks in advance (as IDs are not distributed the same day as the visit), with the appropriate paperwork and documentation. This requirement would essentially nullify the benefits of same-day registration presently enjoyed by Iowa voters, and places an increasing onus on voters to wade through bureaucratic red tape.

Given all costs associated with this proposed legislation, it is fair to ask whether it will solve a legitimate and immediate need. Most factors suggest an ID requirement for voting is unnecessary. Voter fraud—which the bill aims to prevent—is one of the least perpetrated crimes in the country and in Iowa. College leaders around the state have recognized the superfluous and potentially negative effects of Sec. Schultz’s bill and are beginning to stand against it. On February 7, the University of Iowa Student Government’s Student Senate passed a resolution opposing the proposal. The College and Young Democrats of Iowa (CYDI) are also opposed to this measure. Please join us at CYDI by voicing your objections to this bill as we advocate for Iowa voters.

On Tuesday, February 7th the College and Young Democrats of Iowa will be heading to Des Moines to speak with legislators about our concerns over Secretary of State Matt Schultz’ recently proposed voter ID bill. This bill would set unnecessary requirements on voters that would make it more difficult for certain voters, such as the poor, elderly and students, to cast their vote.

We call on you to join us as we lobby against this dangerous bill.

Where: The Iowa State Capitol
When: Tuesday, February 7th, 10 a.m.
Why: Democracy

His plan mandates that all voters present a valid government- or university-issued photo ID when voting, however it also includes a requirement that those ID’s have an expiration date in order to be valid, a requirement that few university-issued IDs would meet. This bill would either make universities institute costly changes to the way they design and issue IDs or leave many students out in the cold, forcing them obtain a state-issued ID which normally requires a passport or birth certificate.

Another major flaw in the legislation, as pointed out by Iowa Democratic Party chair Sue Dvorsky, is the cost of implementation that will be placed on the shoulders of taxpayers. Similar plans that have been proposed in neighboring states, such as Wisconsin, have come with hefty price tags, however Sec. Schultz ignores this, insisting the only cost to the legislation would be a nominal fee to print flyers informing voters about the change this fall.

These costly barriers, ostensibly set up to protect against fraud, offer little to no benefits to the sanctity of our elections. Sec. Schultz himself has admitted that voter fraud is not a major issue in our elections. By and large, it simply does not happen. Sec. Schultz apparently doesn’t subscribe to the philosophy that says “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

As CYDI’s president Austin Frerick said in a press release earlier this week, “if Secretary Sec. Schultz really wants to spend millions of taxpayer dollars, we suggest he look into ways to increase voter registration and awareness among college students, not ways to add barriers to voting.” We implore you to join us at CYDI, and students from across the state, in standing opposed to Sec. Schultz efforts to make voting more difficult.

All eyes are on Iowa as we lead the way in the countdown to Election Day 2012. America took notice when Iowa College Democrats helped propel Barack Obama to victory in 2008, and our vote is just as crucial this year. For this reason, we as college students must take a stand against Mitt Romney and his opportunistic positions. Last week at a campaign stop at The Family Table restaurant in Le Mars, Romney promised that he would veto the DREAM Act if elected President.
Romney’s pledge to veto the DREAM Act proves that he does not stand for young people; he does not stand for progress; he does not stand for the American Dream. This is merely the latest in a series of efforts by Romney to pander to the most right-wing voters. America has long been a land of opportunity and promise, and we as College Democrats believe in those ideals. The DREAM Act has bipartisan support in Congress, and the overwhelming support of college students across the nation. Yet again, Romney has shown that he is out of touch with young voters and does not value their voices.
Many young men and women living in Iowa would benefit from the passage of the DREAM Act. Those given the opportunity to attend one of our state’s great universities or serving in our military would not be the only beneficiaries. Our communities are strengthened by their leadership and their desire to live the American Dream. Romney’s position is in stark contrast to that of President Obama, who has worked tirelessly to ensure that young Americans have a voice. The College Democrats of Iowa will once again turn out in full-force to re-elect the man who believes in the value hard work, patriotism, and the American Dream.

All of these proposals represent significant investments in the most vitally important resources of our economic future: young people. Young people are responsible for the innovation and imagination that will keep the legacy of American ingenuity alive well into the 21st century, and President Obama’s proposals will help promote that innovation.

In a Bloomberg column published on Oct. 24, Harvard economist Edward Glaeser wrote, “any Republican or Democrat who wants to repower our economy must recognize that the nation’s future depends on its human capital, far more than infrastructure or energy or finagling with the tax code.” We cannot wait for Republicans in congress to come around to the idea that investing in our economy can mean more than cutting taxes for the wealthy and the corporations. We need action now.

Check out this video to learn more about the new policy and go here to help President Obama by spreading this message to your friends and family.

On Meet The Press last Sunday, Representative Ron Paul unveiled a new plan to deal with the deficit by cutting $1 trillion in spending in the first year and eliminating 5 cabinet departments including the Department of Education. Part of his plan would drastically reduce federal student aid and eventually get rid of student aid programs altogether, programs which he said had “failed.” These proposals and the underlying priorities are radically out of step with mainstream America and are hostile to the interests of students, graduates and young Americans everywhere.

Tell Representative Paul that your education is not a waste of money by sharing your story with College and Young Democrats of Iowa. Email photos or videos to williamcaseyerixon@gmail.com or send them to us on Facebook or Twitter.

Be sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter for the latest news on student activism in Iowa!