Miller-Meeks, Bohannan Oppose Abortion, Immigration in 1st District Debate • Iowa Capital Dispatch

Although Miller-Meeks was not in the Iowa Legislature in either 2018 or 2023, when two versions of the so-called “fetal heartbeat” law were passed, Bohannan said her opponent “touted” the measure on the campaign trail, and also supported a stricter ban on abortion at the federal level.

However, Miller-Meeks said the legislation she voted for, the Life at Conception Act, is not a ban on abortion. This measure would guarantee the “right to life” of every person and assert that human life begins at conception. It does not define exceptions to this legislation, but does not allow prosecution of women who have had abortions.

Although the measure does not explicitly mention abortion, Bohannan said defining life as beginning at conception would effectively ban all abortions in the country.

“Everyone knows this, this is a personality bill,” Bohannan said. “It creates full individual rights at the moment of conception. Everyone knows that the legal consequences of this are a complete… ban on abortion without any exceptions throughout the country, which is exactly what people knew they were signing up for when they signed up.”

Miller-Meeks said she supports exceptions to the abortion ban and said Bohannan “lied” about Republicans’ record on abortion. She also pushed back against criticism of her support for exemptions for the “life” of the mother rather than the “health” of the mother.

Miller-Meeks said she believes the two words have “very similar” definitions in the law, and said she disagrees with the arguments of some doctors and reproductive health advocates that “life” language prevents doctors from performing abortion procedures until the pregnant woman is born. close to death.

Speaking to reporters after the event, Miller-Meeks said she believes most doctors are “well aware” of which abortions fall under these legal requirements. She said families who shared stories of doctors not performing the procedure in life-threatening situations due to concerns about legal consequences should take legal action.

“I think most doctors have clear recommendations,” Miller-Meeks said. “And you have to ask this doctor, is this doctor pro-abortion or anti-abortion? For restrictions or against restrictions? But I think doctors know this very well. I’m not an obstetrician, but even I know when to intervene. So I think there are guidelines.”

Miller-Meeks also said Bohannan’s position on abortion is radical, allowing abortions up to the point of birth. Bohannan said she would support a federal return to the Roe v. Wade standard, which was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“What my opponent just said was that he refused to answer the question of whether there are any restrictions or limitations on abortion,” Miller-Meeks said. “Roe v. Wade has no restrictions on abortion.”

The two candidates are vying for the seat in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, which represents much of southeast Iowa, including the cities of Iowa City, Davenport and Fairfield. The race is one of the most competitive in the country, one of 26 that election forecasters such as Cook Political Report have called a “toss-up.” These races could potentially determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2025. Along with the 1st District race, Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District is also considered a competitive race.

Amid increased national attention, the 1st District saw strong fundraising and spending, with Bohannan raising more than $1.8 million and spending $3 million on campaign funds, according to the Federal Election Commission’s quarterly report ending Sept. 30, and Miller-Meeks raised $1 million. and spent $1.2 million.

In addition to their disputes over abortion, the two candidates have also challenged each other’s record on immigration and border security. Both candidates said they support securing the U.S. southern border and making changes to the legal immigration system, but disagreed on the best way to achieve those goals.

Bohannan said she would have supported a bipartisan immigration package that failed to pass in the U.S. House of Representatives, pointing to Republican support for the measure in both chambers.

“This is what we have, we have people who talk about solving these problems, but… when it comes down to it, they don’t want to do anything about it because they want to continue playing politics with this issue,” – Bohannan said. “And this is an example of how, you know, Rep. Miller Meeks voted against the bill — or even refused to vote for it on the bill — that could actually make a big difference.”

But Miller-Meeks said she took action on immigration — voting for the House GOP-backed Border Security Act of 2023, which failed to pass the U.S. Senate — when a bipartisan package was never offered. She also said Bohannan supported sanctuary cities and organizations that sought to abolish ICE.

“My opponent didn’t mention the border, didn’t say anything about the border, didn’t say the border should be secure until it became a political liability for her and her party,” Miller-Meeks said.

Another major topic discussed at Monday night’s debate was Congress’ economic goals for the coming year – plans that could be scrapped depending on who wins the White House and each chamber of Congress. Miller-Meeks called for an extension of Trump’s 2017 tax law. These tax laws are set to expire at the end of 2025. Ending those tax laws would mean the expiration of the law’s higher child care tax credits, and Republicans say it could hurt the budgets of many low- and middle-class families.

Bohannan said she thinks Congress should pursue different tax policies.

“Look, this was 2017, this was seven years ago — a lot happened,” Bohannan said. “COVID, you know, has changed a lot of our economy and a lot of things about our economy. So we need to take a holistic look at our tax system and make sure it works for the middle class. You know, my opponent supported tax cuts for the super rich or billionaire donors for corporations, and I think we need a tax system where everyone pays their fair share, and we will never support tax increases for the middle class.”

Concerns about the expiring tax law have become even more prominent in this year’s election discussions as many families across the country grapple with inflation and the high cost of living. Bohannan said the federal government should “take back” some of the unused COVID-era relief funds that remain undistributed, saying that returning money for other funding needs could help reduce debt and help create a stable economic environment.

But Bohannan also argued that some of the cost inflation Iowans are seeing at grocery stores is not caused by high government spending, but by corporations keeping prices high in the wake of the pandemic even after supply chain problems caused the initial spike. were resolved.

Miller-Meeks said Bohannan’s argument was in her favor because price gouging and high inflation following the pandemic occurred while President Joe Biden was in office.

“You’re making my point about why people should re-elect Donald Trump and why they should re-elect me,” Miller-Meeks said. “And that means that if companies were afraid to jack up prices under President Trump, perhaps he should return to the White House. Under President Biden, companies are only jacking up prices.”