>> THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A
PBS WISCONSIN ORIGINAL
PRODUCTION.
>> WHAT WE HAVE HERE ARE PEOPLE
OF GOODWILL SAYING HERE IS
SOMETHING THAT REPUBLICANS COULD
MOVE ON TO BE ABLE TO UPDATE THE
STATUTE.
>> ASSEMBLY REPUBLICANS
CIRCULATE A BILL ALLOWING
ABORTIONS IN CASES OF RAPE OR
INCEST, BUT THE SENATE SAYS
NO-GO.
>>> A FEDERAL AGENCY RECOMMENDS
STRICT STANDARDS FOR TOXIC
FOREVER CHEMICALS, AND THE
LEGISLATURE HOSTS THE ANNUAL
STATE-OF-THE TRIBES ADDRESS.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG, TONIGHT
ON HERE AND NOW, SENATOR TAMMY
BALDWIN ADDRESSES CLEAN WATER
AND ABORTION.
ZAC SCHULTZ REPORTS ON THE
INTENSIFYING WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT RACE.
TRIBAL LEADERS EXPLAIN BARRIERS
TO HEALTHCARE, AND A LOOK AT A
LAW CRIMINALIZING OVERDOSE
DEATHS.
IT'S HERE AND NOW FOR MARCH
17th.
>> FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS
FUND FOR JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS
OF PBS WISCONSIN.
?
>> IN WASHINGTON, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUST RELEASED RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
CONTAMINATED WITH FOREVER
CHEMICALS KNOWN AS P.F.O.S.,
SETTING THEM AT FOUR PARTS PER
PARTS PER TRILLION.
WISCONSIN STANDARDS ARE
CURRENTLY SET AT 70 PARTS PER
PARTS PER TRILLION.
THE NEW STANDARDS WILL REGULATE
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS BUT NOT
PRIVATE WELLS.
EARLIER, WE SPOKE WITH WISCONSIN
U.S. SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN,
WHOSE NEW BILL WOULD PROVIDE
GRANTS TO HOUSEHOLDS DEALING
WITH P.F.O.S.
SENATOR FROM HORRY TAMMYSENATOR TAMMIE BALLED, THANK YOU
FOR BEING WITH US.
>> THE NEW E.P.A. RECOMMENDED
STANDARDS AND REMEDIATION
FUNDING UNDER THE INFRASTRUCTURE
ACT COVERS PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
ONLY.
IS THAT WHERE YOUR BILL COMES
IN?
>> YEAH.
AS THE HEALTHY h2o ACT REALLY
FOCUSES ON RURAL COMMUNITIES
WHERE SO MANY HOUSEHOLDS DEPEND
UPON PRIVATE WELLS FOR THEIR
SOURCE OF WATER.
AND RIGHT NOW, A LOT OF FOLKS
WHO USE PRIVATE WELLS DON'T TEST
THE WATER QUALITY ON A FREQUENT
BASIS.
IT'S ACTUALLY RATHER EXPENSIVE.
AND SO THIS WILL ENCOURAGE,
THROUGH USE OF GRANTS,
COMMUNITIES TO UP THE LEVEL OF
WELL TESTING THAT GOES ON AND
WHAT'S REALLY PROMISING ABOUT
THIS LEGISLATION IS THAT IF
CONTAMINANTS ARE FOUND, LIKE
P.F.O.S. OR OTHERS, THAT THE
GRANTS ALSO, THEN, COVER THE
COST OF FILTRATION SO THAT YOU
CAN UNCOVER THE ISSUE AND
ADDRESS THE ISSUE IN THE SAME
PROGRAM.
>> BECAUSE HOW CONCERNING IS
THIS KIND OF P.F.O.S.
CONTAMINATION ACROSS THE STATE
OF WISCONSIN FOR YOU?
>> YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T SO MANY
YEARS AGO I HAD NEVER EVEN HEARD
THE TERM, P.F.O.S., AND THEN
COMMUNITY AFTER COMMUNITY IS
TESTING THEIR WATER, OFTENTIMES
THE COMMUNITIES DOING THE
TESTING HAVE A PUBLIC WATER
UTILITY AND SO THEY'RE TESTING
WATER THAT'S GOING TO BE
DISTRIBUTED AMONG HUNDREDS IF
NOT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, AND
WE'RE SEEING P.F.O.S.
CONTAMINATION IN COMMUNITIES
ACROSS WISCONSIN.
BUT I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT
THOSE WITH PRIVATE WELLS WHO MAY
ALSO HAVE CONTAMINATION BUT,
AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE HIGH COST
OF TESTING, THERE'S NOT
NECESSARILY AN UNDERSTANDING IN
REAL TIME THAT FILTRATION OR
OTHER REMEDIATION IS NECESSARY.
>> SO ACCORDING TO THE BILL
LANGUAGE, THE APPROPRIATION FOR
THIS WOULD BE $10 MILLION
NATIONALLY ANNUALLY UNTIL 2028.
HOW FAR DOES THAT GO WHEN
WISCONSIN ALONE HAS ONE MILLION
PRIVATE WELLS?
>> YEAH.
SO NOT FAR ENOUGH, BUT WE HAVE
TO START SOMEWHERE, AND RIGHT
NOW, THERE'S VERY LITTLE, IF
ANY, ASSISTANCE FOR THOSE WHO
ARE DEPENDENT UPON WATER FROM
PRIVATE WELLS.
AND YET WE KNOW WE HAVE
COMMUNITIES IN WISCONSIN RIGHT
NOW WHO HAVE P.F.O.S.
CONTAMINATION AND ARE SERVED BY
PRIVATE WELLS.
A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT IS, ON
FRENCH ISLAND, ADJACENT TO THE
CITY OF LACROSSE, WHERE ALL THE
WELLS HAVE DISCOVERED P.F.O.S.
CONTAMINATION AND THEY'RE
STRUGGLING AS A COMMUNITY OF
HOMEOWNERS WITH EACH -- THEIR
PRIVATE WELL OF HOW DO WE GO
FORWARD.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
EQUIPPING AS MANY FOLKS AS
POSSIBLE.
AND THESE GRANTS, AS WE START UP
THE PROGRAM, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING
WE CAN GET IT PASSED IN THE FARM
BILL OR AS FREESTANDING
LEGISLATION, THESE GRANTS CAN
COME TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
THAT CAN HELP ORGANIZE PRIVATE
WELL TESTING AND THE
FOLLOW-THROUGH IF CONTAMINANTS
ARE FOUND.
>> MOVING ON TO ANOTHER ISSUE,
YOU'VE ALSO REINTRODUCED A BILL
THAT INCLUDES PROVISIONS LIKE
PROHIBITING STATES FROM LEARNING
ABORTIONS IF THE HEALTH OF THE
MOTHER IS IN DANGER.
WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU IN
WISCONSIN NOW?
>> WELL, THE WOMEN'S HEALTH
PROTECTION ACT, WHICH WOULD
INTRODUCE WITH A RECORD NUMBER
OF SENATORS ON BOARD, WOULD,
FIRST OF ALL, CODIFY ROE VERSUS
WADE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, BUT
AS YOU SAY, GO ON TO TELL STATES
AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS
THAT YOU CANNOT RESTRICT OR
LIMIT ACCESS TO THESE FREEDOMS
AND RIGHTS AT THE STATE LEVEL.
AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR
THOSE OF US IN WISCONSIN, WHERE
AN 1849 CRIMINAL ABORTION
STATUTE HAS NEARLY TOTALLY
ELIMINATED ACCESS TO ABORTION
CARE AND LEFT MANY IN CRISIS.
>> EXACTLY WHAT WOULD THE BILL
CALL FOR?
>> PREVIABILITY.
THE STATE CANNOT INTERFERE IN
ANY WAY WITH ACCESS TO
REPRODUCTIVE CARE, INCLUDING
ABORTION CARE.
BUT POST-VIABILITY, CONSISTENT
WITH ROE VERSUS WADE, STATES CAN
ACT AS LONG AS THEY'RE ACTING IN
A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH
PROTECTING THE HEALTH AND LIFE
OF THE MOTHER.
IN WISCONSIN, THESE RIGHTS HAVE
DISAPPEARED IN AN INSTANT WHEN,
LAST SUMMER, THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT REVERSED ROE VERSUS WADE.
>> WILL IT PASS?
>> WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT
THIS SITUATION IS URGENT.
14 STATES, INCLUDING WISCONSIN,
HAVE VIRTUAL BANS ON ABORTION
CARE AND THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE,
THAT WHOLE GENERATION IS LIVING
WITH FEWER RIGHTS THAN THEIR
MOTHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS.
>> SPEAKING OF THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN, THE WISCONSIN
ASSEMBLY WAS CIRCULATING A BILL
CALLING FOR EXEMPTIONS FOR RAPE
AND INCEST AND IN SITUATIONS
WHERE THE MOTHER'S HEALTH WAS IN
SERIOUS JEOPARDY, THOUGH THE
REPUBLICAN LEAD SENATE SAID THEY
WOULDN'T TAKE IT UP.
WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO ALL OF
THIS ACTION THAT'S HAPPENING AT
THE STATE LEVEL IN OUR
LEGISLATURE?
>> YEAH.
WELL, ON ONE HAND, THERE NEEDS
TO BE A RECOGNITION THAT THE
STATUS QUO IN WISCONSIN IS
UNACCEPTABLE.
WE HAVE A PRE-CIVIL WAR ERA
CRIMINAL ABORTION BAN, AND I
CAN'T HELP BUT THINK THAT THAT
WAS 70 YEARS BEFORE WOMEN GOT
THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
THERE WERE NO WOMEN IN THE
WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE IN 1849
PARTICIPATING IN THE DEBATE AND
WE KNOW SO MUCH MORE IN TERMS OF
SCIENCE AND MEDICINE TODAY.
IT IS UNACCEPTABLE THAT THAT IS
THE LAW OF THE LAND IN THE STATE
OF WISCONSIN, BUT I DON'T THINK
TWEAKING AROUND THE EDGES OF
THIS 1849 LAW IS ACCEPTABLE AND
I STAND WITH THE GOVERNOR,
GOVERNOR TONY EVERS, WHO SAID
THAT HE WOULD VETO SUCH TWEAKS
AND, INSTEAD OF, WE NEED TO CALL
FOR MODERNIZING AND, FRANKLY, TO
ACT IN LINE WITH THE WOMEN'S
HEALTH PROTECTION ACT, WHICH I
LAID AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
>> SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN, WE
LEAVE IT THERE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YOU CAN WATCH OUR EXTENDED
INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR BALDWIN
BY VISITING PBS DOT-ORG.
>> WE ARE CONTINUING OUR LOOK AT
PAST DECISIONS BY THE COURT, HOW
THE CANDIDATES MIGHT HAVE RULED
AND PERHAPS CHANGED THE OUTCOME.
HERE AND NOW SENIOR POLITICAL
REPORTER, ZAC SCHULTZ, HAS THIS
STORY.
>> IN MAY OF 2020, THE WORLD WAS
IN LOCK-DOWN.
THE COVID PANDEMIC WAS ONLY
MONTHS UNDERWAY WITH THE VACCINE
STILL EIGHT MONTHS AWAY.
GOVERNOR TONY EVERS' EMERGENCY
AUTHORITY ELAPSED AFTER 60 DAYS,
AND WHEN ANDRE PALM, HIS
SECRETARY DESIGNEE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, TRIED TO
REISSUE EMERGENCY SAFER-AT-HOME
ORDERS, THE REPUBLICANS IN THE
LEGISLATURE FILED A LAWSUIT
SAYING THE ORDERS WERE A RULE
AND SHOULD GO THROUGH THE
RULE-MAKING PROCESS, WHICH WOULD
ALLOW REPUBLICANS TO 8-GAME
WINNINGKILL THEORDERS.
>> AS YOU KNOW, THE OPINION OF
THE COURT WAS THAT THE
SAFER-AT-HOME ORDER DID NOT
FOLLOW THE RULES FOR
PROMULGATING A NEW RULE AND, AS
A RESULT, IT WAS AN UNLAWFUL
ORDER.
>> DANIEL KELLY WAS ON THE COURT
AT THE TIME.
HE HAD LOST HIS BID FOR
RE-ELECTION A MONTH EARLIER BUT
HIS TERM WENT THROUGH AUGUST AND
HE CAST THE DECIDING VOTE IN A
FRACTURED 4-3 DECISION.
JUSTICE REBECCA BRADLY AND I
WROTE SEPARATELY TO ADDRESS THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY PROBLEM AND SO
THE WAY WE LOOK TATT IS WE SAW
AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY
MAKING THE LAW AND THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT OUR CONSTITUTION
ONLY GIVES TO THE LEGISLATURE.
>> PROTASIEWICZ WAS MUCH LESS
WILLING TO STAKE OUT A POSITION,
EVEN THOUGH THE LIBERAL DISSENT
SAID THE MAJORITY RULING WOULD
LIKE RESULT IN ADDITIONAL DEATHS
IN WISCONSIN.
>> I DON'T KNOW, AND I'LL TELL
YOU THIS, OBVIOUSLY I'VE GOT A
LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT PUBLIC
SAFETY, BUT EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND
EXTENDING EXECUTIVE ORDERS,
THOSE ARE INTERESTING,
COMPLICATED, INTRICATE CASES.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT JUST GOING
TO PULL A RABBIT OUT OF THE HAT
AND SAY ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER
BECAUSE I REALLY AM
CONTEMPLATIVE AND I LIKE TO
THINK ABOUT THE LAW AND THINK
ABOUT ALL OF THE ISSUES.
>> SEVEN MONTHS LATER, ANOTHER
SIGNIFICANT CASE CAME TO THE
COURT.
TRUMP V BIDEN, IN WHICH DONALD
TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN SOUGHT TO
OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN
WISCONSIN BY TOSSING OUT
THOUSANDS OF ANTEE ANT ABSENTEE
BALLOTS.
WITH KELLY OFF THE COURT, IT WAS
RULED 4-3 THEY WOULD NOT HEAR
THE CASE, SEALING TRUMP'S LOSS.
KELLY WAS VAGUE ABOUT WHETHER HE
WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE CASE.
>> YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WERE
A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
THAT WERE EMBEDDED IN THOSE
CASES, THINGS ABOUT BALLOT DROP
BOXES, BALLOT HARVESTING.
THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ANSWERED
IN FOLLOWING CASES, BUT I DON'T
THINK THERE WAS ANY REASON THEY
SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN
THOSE CASES.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD HAVE
CHANGED THE RESULT AT ALL, BUT
HAS A QUESTIONABLE LAW, YOU
KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THOSE QUESTIONS
ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET
ANSWERED AT SOME POINT.
>> RECENT REPORTING HAS SHOWN
DURING THAT TIME, KELLY WAS
ACTUALLY ADVISING THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY OF WISCONSIN ON THEIR
SLATE OF FAKE ELECTORS THAT
WOULD HAVE COME FOR TRUMP ON
JANUARY 6th IF HIS LAWSUIT WAS
SUCCESSFUL.
PROTASIEWICZ SAYS KELLY'S
OBJECTIONS LEAVE LITTLE DOUBT
ABOUT HOW HE WOULD HAVE VOTED.
>> HE WAS RECENTLY TOURING THE
STATE WITH, OF ALL PEOPLE, OF
ALL PEOPLE, MICHAEL GABLEMAN, AN
ELECTION INTEGRITY TOUR.
WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO DO?
PEDDLE THE BIG LIE THAT THE 2020
ELECTION WAS STOLEN.
WE ALL KNOW THAT ELECTION WASN'T
STOLEN.
>> REPORTING FROM MADISON, I'M
ZAC SCHULTZ FOR "HERE AND NOW."
>> AT THE CAPITOL THIS WEEK,
CHAIRMAN ROBERT VAN ZILE OF THE
SOKAOGON ADDRESSED THE ANNUAL
STATE-OF-THE TRIBES ADDRESS, A
TOP ISSUE FOR TRIBES ACROSS
WISCONSIN IS AFFORDABLE AND
ACCESSIBLE QUALITY HEALTHCARE.
>> THE TRIBES FACE A HUGE
BARRIER WITH RECRUITING AND
RETAINING MEDICAL STAFF SINCE
THE PANDEMIC.
WAGES OF HEALTHCARE
PROFESSIONALS HAVE SKYROCKETED.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR A TRIBE
TO COMPETE WITH THE WAGES FOR
HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS AT THIS
TIME.
TRIBES WORK ON VERY LIMITED
FUNDS FROM THE INDIAN HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, WHICH BARELY COVERS
WAGES.
>> TO UNDERSTAND MORE OF THE
HEALTH CHALLENGES WISCONSIN
TRIBES ENCOUNTER, WE TURN TO
DEBRA DANFORTH, DIRECTORS OF THE
ONEIDA COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
DIVISION.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SO ACCORDING TO YOUR LATEST
COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT, 26%
OF RESPONDENTS SAID THAT THEY
HAD TO DELAY CARE BECAUSE THEY
COULDN'T BE SEEN SOON ENOUGH.
SO IS HEALTHCARE ACCESS HINDERED
BY THESE WAGE PRESSURES AND
DIFFICULTY RECRUITING MEDICAL
TALENT, AS WAS POINTED TO IN THE
STATE OF THE TRIBES?
>> MOST DEFINITELY.
MANY OF THE TRIBES, PARTICULARLY
FOR ONEIDA, WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL
OF DIFFICULTY IN TERMS OF
RECRUITING AND RETAINING
PROVIDERS.
WE'VE HAD SOME POSITIONS THAT
WE'VE HAD POSTED PROBABLY SINCE
EVEN BEFORE THE PANDEMIC
STARTED, SO IT WAS DIFFICULT
PRIOR TO AND THEN WHEN THE
PANDEMIC HIT, IT EVEN
COMPLICATED THE MATTERS GREATLY.
WE ARE NOT ABLE TO BE AS
COMPETITIVE AS OUR PARTNERS IN
HEALTHCARE IN THE SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES, AND FOR ONEIDA,
WE'RE FORTUNATE IN THAT WE'RE IN
A PRETTY POPULAR LOCATION IN
TERMS OF OUR ACCESS TO OTHER
HEALTHCARE FACILITIES AND OTHER
HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS.
HOWEVER, FOR THE TRIBES THAT ARE
MUCH SMOLLER SMALLER THAN US THAT ARE
LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN AREAS OF
WISCONSIN AND THROUGHOUT THE
OTHER AREAS OF WISCONSIN, IT IS
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO TRY AND
BE COMPETITIVE WITH SOME OF THE
HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS IN THOSE
AREAS.
SO RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION HAS
ALWAYS BEEN AN ISSUE, BUT IT HAS
BEEN MAGNIFIED BY THE PANDEMIC
SIMPLY BECAUSE WE CAN'T BE
COMPETITIVE.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE
TO GET ACCESS TO CARE, AND WITH
THE LIMITATION OF FUNDING THAT
WE RECEIVE, IT'S OFTEN -- MAKES
IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR US.
>> AS TO THE PEOPLE THAT YOU ARE
CARING FOR, YOUR ANNUAL
ASSESSMENT ALSO SHOWED THAT 85%
OF THOSE ENROLLED IN THE ONEIDA
ARE OVERWEIGHT OR OBESE AND 25%
HAVE DIABETES.
HOW MAJOR A TRALG CHALLENGE ARE THESE
KINDS OF HEALTH PROFILES?
>> THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN
CONTINUING TO DO IN OUR
COMMUNITY, AS HAS MANY OF THE
OTHER TRIBES, AS A RESULT OF THE
SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAMS, THEY
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EDUCATE THE
COMMUNITIES AND GIVE PEOPLE HOPE
THAT, BY PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES
FOR EXERCISE, PROVIDING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIET AND
EDUCATION, THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE
TO MAKE IMPACTS INTO CONTROLLING
DIABETES WITHIN OUR COMMUNITIES.
STILL NOT TO WHERE WE NEED TO
BE, BUT WE'RE HEADING IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT A FEW
YEARS AGO, WE DID HAVE A NUMBER
OF PEOPLE THAT WERE -- WE HAD A
NUMBER OF HIGH RATES OF
AMPUTATIONS AS A RESULT OF
UNCONTROLLED DIABETES.
WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THAT
IMPACT IMPROVE WHERE THERE'S
VERY FEW AMPUTATIONS FROM OUR
DIABETIC PATIENTS THAT THERE
USED TO BE -- I MEAN, IT USED TO
BE SOMETHING THAT WE DEALT WITH
ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND WITH THE
WORK THAT WE'RE DOING, WE CAN
SEE THOSE IMPACTS.
DOES IT TAKE A WHILE?
YEAH.
25, 30 YEARS TO SEE THAT IMPACT
IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT WE'RE
SEEING THAT IMPACT, AND THAT'S
WHAT I THINK KEEPS ALL OF US AS
HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS STRUGGLING
AND FIGHTING TO MAKE SURE THAT
OUR COMMUNITIES HAVE THAT ACCESS
AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN HELP
TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE OVERALL
FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS
NEXT POINT, TOO.
THE NUMBER OF OPIOID DEATHS
AMONG AMERICAN INDIANS IN
WISCONSIN ACCORDING TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES IS
REPORTED AS 2-1/2 TIMES HIGHER
THAN THE STATEWIDE RATE.
HOW CRUSHING IS THIS CRISIS
WHERE YOU'RE?
>> THIS CRISIS AFFECTS ALL OF
THE TRIBES, NOT JUST IN
WISCONSIN, BUT ACROSS THE
COUNTRY.
THE OPIOID CRISIS HAS BEEN VERY
EVIDENT AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
DONE A LOT OF WORK WITH TRYING
TO ADDRESS EDUCATION IN THE
COMMUNITY, DOING OUTREACH INTO
THE COMMUNITIES, BUT MANY OF OUR
TRIBES ARE FACING THE SAME LEVEL
OF CRISIS WITHIN THEIR
COMMUNITIES.
A LOT OF THAT IS RELATED TO,
AGAIN, ACCESS TO CARE.
WE HAVE LIMITATIONS IN TERMS OF
BEING ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO
MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS.
MANY TIMES IT'S NOT JUST THE
DRUG OR THE ALCOHOL ITSELF; IT'S
A COMBINATION.
IT'S DUAL DIAGNOSES, IT'S MENTAL
HEALTH ON TOP OF OPIOIDS ON TOP
OF ALCOHOL, ON TOP OF WHATEVER
OTHER DRUG IS THEIR DRUG OF
CHOICE, AND THEN HAVING ACCESS
TO CARE, YOU KNOW, COMPLICATES
THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF THE
MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS TO BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE.
WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO
PROVIDE THE SERVICES LIKE
IN-PATIENT CARE THAT'S NECESSARY
TO TREAT THE DRUG ADDICTIONS AND
THE ALCOHOL ADDICTIONS, AND SO
MANY OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS
HAVE TO BE SENT OUTSIDE OF OUR
COMMUNITIES, THEY HAVE TO BE
SENT OUT OF THE STATE TO BE ABLE
TO GET THE SPECIFIC SERVICES
THAT THEY NEED AND THEN WHEN
THEY DO COME BACK, AGAIN,
THEY'RE FACED WITH THE SAME
KINDS OF COMPLEXITIES OF COMING
BACK TO THE SAME COMMUNITY THEY
LEFT, COMING BACK TO THE SAME
TYPES OF TRIGGERS THAT THEY
LEFT.
>> YOU ARE DOING THE GOOD WORK.
DEBRA DANFORTH, THANKS VERY
MUCH.
>> MM-HMM.
>> GOVERNOR TONY EVERS TODAY
APPOINTED FORMER STATE TREASURER
SARA GADLUSKI TO SECRETARY OF
STATE AFTER DOUG RESIGNED
EFFECTIVE TODAY.
LAFOLETTE HELD OFFICE FOR SEVEN
EXECUTIVE YEARS SPANNING MORE
THAN 40 YEARS.
HE SAID HE WAS QUITTING AFTER
MANY YEARS OF FRUSTRATION OVER
TRYING TO RUN AN OFFICE WITHOUT
ADEQUATE RESOURCES OR STAFFING
LEVELS.
HE SERVED AS STATE TREASURER
FROM 2019 TO 2023 AND WILL FILL
THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM ENDING
IN JANUARY OF 2027.
ALSO, AT THE STATE CAPITOL THIS
WEEK, A SENATE COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
HEARD TESTIMONY ON A BILL THAT
WOULD INCREASE PENALTIES FOR
DRUG OVERDOSES THAT ARE TREATED
AS HOMICIDES, SAYING WISCONSIN'S
CURRENT LAW DOESN'T GO FAR
ENOUGH AT TARGETING SUPPLIERS OF
DRUGS LIKE OPIOIDS LACED WITH
FENTANYL.
BUT SOME EXPERTS SAY WHAT THESE
LAWS SEEK IN THEORY IS NOT WHAT
THEY TARGET IN PRACTICE.
TO LEARN MORE, WE SPEAK WITH
JOHN GROSS, A CLINICAL ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE UW LAW
SCHOOL AND DIRECTOR OF THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER PROJECT.
AND PROFESSOR, THANKS VERY MUCH
FOR BEING HERE.
>> MY PLEASURE.
THANK YOU.
>> SO CURRENT STATE LAW MAKES
CAUSING THE DEATH IN AN OVERDOSE
A 40-YEAR MAXIMUM PENALTY.
THIS BILL WOULD MAKE IT A
60-YEAR.
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THAT
PROPOSAL OUT OF THE CAPITOL?
>> WELL, MY FIRST REACTION IS
THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S
NECESSARY TO INCREASE THE
PENALTY HERE.
WISCONSIN ACTUALLY HAS VERY HIGH
PENALTIES RELATIVE TO SOME OTHER
STATES FOR VARIOUS FELONY
OFFENSES.
SO MOVING THIS FROM A 40-YEAR
MAXIMUM TO A 60-YEAR MAXIMUM, I
JUST DON'T THINK IT REALLY
ADDRESSES ANY OF THE UNDERLYING
ISSUES.
>> WELL, DOES IT SEEM, GIVEN THE
OPIOID CRISIS, THAT POLICY
MAKERS ARE LOOKING TO USE KIND
OF A TOUGH ON DRUGS HAMMER TO
QUELL IT?
>> I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S THE
KNEE-JERK REACTION HERE, IS TO
SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO APPEAR
TO BE TOUGH ON CRIME BY
INCREASING THE PENALTY, BUT WE
HAVE GOOD DATA THAT SUGGESTS
THAT THIS TYPE OF KNEE-JERK
REACTION THAT JUST MAKE
SOMETHING MORE PUNITIVE,
INCREASE THE PENALTY ON IT, IS
NOT REALLY GOING TO IMPACT WHAT
DECISIONS PEOPLE ARE MAKING.
PARTICULARLY IN THIS AREA WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
HAVE OPIOID ABUSE DISORDERS.
SO, AGAIN, IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO
APPEAR HARSH ON CRIME, BUT IT'S
REALLY IGNORING THE UNDERLYING
ISSUES THAT ARE CAUSING THE
OVERDOSES.
>> SO, AGAIN, YOU DON'T THINK
THAT IT DETERS OVERDOSE DEATHS?
>> NO.
THERE'S EVEN AN ARGUMENT TO SAY
THAT INCREASING THIS TYPE OF
PENALTY COULD CAUSE MORE
OVERDOSE DEATHS, AND THE
SCENARIO I'M IMAGINING IS A
SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE ARE USING
DRUGS, SOMEONE HAS GOTTEN DRUGS,
SHARED THEM WITH SOMEONE ELSE,
AND THAT THE PERSON OVERDOSES,
AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT IN THAT
MOMENT, THEY WOULD SEEK MEDICAL
ATTENTION FOR THE PERSON, BUT IF
THE MESSAGE FROM THE STATE IS IF
YOU HAPPEN TO HAND THE PERSON
THE DRUGS THAT THEY USED AND
THEY ARE KNOW OVERDOSING, YOU
COULD GO TO JAIL FOR 60 YEARS AS
A DISTRIBUTOR OF THE NARCOTIC OR
THE OPIOID?
WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT
NECESSARILY IS GOING TO PREVENT
OVERDOSES.
>> SO IN YOUR MIND, IS THERE A
BETTER WAY?
>> WELL, I THINK IF THE STATE IS
INSERIAL CONCERNED AS WE ALL ARE
ABOUT -- LOWER THE NUMBER OF
OVERDOSE DEATHS, THEY'VE REACHED
A HIGH POINT.
HISTORICALLY WHAT YOU NEED IS TO
REALLY ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING
ISSUES OF ADDICTION.
YOU NEED TO PROVIDE MORE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR TREATMENT, AND
YOU NEED TO CREATE, I THINK,
SAFE SPACES FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
OVERDOSING TO HAVE OTHERS TRY TO
GET THEM MEDICAL ATTENTION, AND
THIS IS REALLY JUST THE OPPOSITE
OF THAT.
>> WELL, WHEN IT COMES TO
CRIMINAL PENALTIES, SHOULD THERE
BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIND OF
A HIGH LEVEL DEALER SELLING
OPIOIDS LACED WITH FENTANYL AND
THOSE ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS USING
WITH THEIR FRIENDS.
I MEAN, IS THERE A PLACE FOR
THIS KIND OF PENALTY FOR THE,
QUOTE, DEALER?
>> SO IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE
THESE TYPES OF OFFENSES ARE
USUALLY LABELED DRUG INDUCED
HOMICIDES, AND LEGISLATURE
STARTED TO CRIMINALIZE THAT AS A
HOMICIDE BACK IN THE '80s WHEN
WE WERE EXPERIENCING AN UPTICK
IN CRACK COCAINE USE, AND THE
THEORY BEHIND DOING THIS WAS TO
REALLY TARGET PEOPLE WHO WERE
SORT OF DRUG KINGPINS.
RIGHT? TO HOLD PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY WERE
DISTRIBUTING DRUGS THAT WERE
KILLING FEMALE AND MAKING A
PROPHET OFF OF IT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE WAY THE
STATUTE IS WRITTEN, IT CREATES
THE POTENTIAL TO CHARGE ANYBODY
WHO DISTRIBUTES OR DELIVERS
DRUGS TO SOMEONE ELSE.
SO THERE ARE INSTANCES THAT --
WHERE WE SEE FRIENDS USING DRUGS
TOGETHER AND ONE PERSON
OVERDOSES AND DIES AND THEN THE
OTHER PERSON IS CHARGED UNDER
THE STATUTE.
SO ON THE FACE OF IT, WE'RE
REALLY JUST HOPING THAT
PROSECUTORS WILL USE THEIR
DISCRETION TO ONLY CHARGE PEOPLE
WHO ARE THE SUPPOSED DRUG
KINGPINS, BUT WE HAVE CASES AND
SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE TO SHOW
THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S
HAPPENING.
THEY'RE REALLY TARGETING OTHER
PEOPLE WHO ARE CO-USERS, AND I
THINK THAT'S REALLY PROBLEMATIC.
>> AND YET, WHEN A FAMILY MEMBER
OR CHILD DIES OF AN OVERDOSE,
SHOULDN'T SOMEONE BE HEALTH
CRIMINALLY LIABLE?
>> I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S
CERTAINLY AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE
THAT ANYBODY WHO HELPS PROCURE
OR DISTRIBUTE A DRUG THAT IS
ITSELF ILLEGAL AND DOES LEAD TO
SOMEONE ELSE'S DEATH, THAT THAT
CAN BE CRIMINALIZED.
SHOULD WE BE CRIMINALIZING IT AT
40 YEARS AS A SENTENCE OR 60
YEARS AS A SENTENCE?
I MEAN, I THINK THOSE ARE
EXTREMES AND I THINK, AGAIN, I
THINK THE UNDERLYING ISSUE HERE
IS THE ADDICTION AND THERE'S
OTHER WAYS THAT THE STATE CAN DO
TO HELP REDUCE OPIOID DEATHS AND
OTHER OVERDOSES RATHER THAN THIS
SORT OF PUNITIVE, LET'S JUST
MAKE THE PENALTY LONGER
APPROACH.
>> PROFESSOR AT THE UW LAW
SCHOOL, JOHN GROSS, THANKS VERY
MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER
ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT
OUR WEBSITE AT PBS WISCONSIN
DOT-ORG AND THEN CLICK ON THE
NEWS TAB.
THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR TONIGHT.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND.
CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY
RIVERSIDE CAPTIONING COMPANY
FUNDING FOR HERE AND NOW IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.