Civil rights protections for transgender Iowans would be removed from state law under a bill introduced Thursday by Republicans on the Iowa House Judiciary Committee.
It would remove gender identity as a protected characteristic from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, which currently provides transgender Iowans with protection from discrimination in housing, education, employment, public accommodations and credit practices.
The bill would also define “sex” in state law as “the state of being either male or female as observed or clinically verified at birth.” And it would define “gender” as a synonym for sex that “shall not be considered a synonym or shorthand expression for gender identity, experienced gender, gender expression or gender role.”
Max Mowitz, executive director of the LGBTQ rights organization One Iowa, said in a statement that the bill would erase transgender Iowans under the law.
“This is the worst bill we have ever seen come out of the Iowa Legislature, and that is a high bar,” Mowitz said. “This would wreak havoc on the lives of transgender people across the state, upending their ability to do basic things like rent an apartment or get a credit card.”
Transgender women would be barred from women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, domestic violence shelters, prisons, rape crisis centers and more.
The bill states, "The term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or ‘identical.’” It also says, “Separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.”
Transgender Iowans would no longer be able to change the sex listed on their birth certificate under the bill.
Transgender Iowans would no longer be able to change the sex listed on their birth certificate. Current law allows this if the person’s doctor certifies that their sex has changed due to surgery or other treatment.
House Speaker Pat Grassley, R-New Hartford, said in a statement that in the past, he and House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Steven Holt thought it was not necessary to advance a bill that would remove gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
“However, because of a court decision citing gender identity in Iowa code, taxpayers have been paying for hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgeries for Iowans on Medicaid,” Grassley said. “Additionally, we have recently passed common sense protections regarding girls’ sports, locker rooms, and restrooms and prohibiting sex reassignment surgeries on minors. These are common sense policies Iowans have begged us to take action on and supported in subsequent elections. It has become clear because of that court decision that those popular policies are at risk as long as gender identity remains specified in the civil rights code. It is for that reason, and at the urging of many Iowans, that we have decided it is time to give this bill the full consideration of the Iowa House Republican caucus.”
The policies mentioned by Grassley have not been challenged in court.
Mowitz said the bill removes transgender Iowans’ ability to get government documents that match their gender and would also weaken protections for intersex and cisgender Iowans who don’t meet the bill’s gender definitions.
“This bill is pointless, unnecessary and unbelievably cruel,” Mowitz said. “Transgender Iowans are our friends, our neighbors and our coworkers. We deserve the same fundamental rights, dignity and respect as anyone else. This legislation will not improve the life of a single Iowan, but it will undoubtedly make the lives of transgender Iowans worse. We call on legislators to reject this proposal and get back to work on policies that make our state better for everyone.”
Iowa could become the first state to remove a protected class from civil rights law
Gender identity was added to the Iowa Civil Rights Act as a protected characteristic in 2007. The law prohibits discrimination based on Iowans’ race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, ancestry or disability.
Twenty-three states explicitly prohibit housing and employment discrimination based on gender identity, and 22 states prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, according to Human Rights Campaign. Additional states have adopted a federal legal framework that says gender identity discrimination is prohibited under federal sex-based employment protections.
According to Iowa Safe Schools, an organization that supports LGBTQ youth, the bill would make Iowa the first state in the nation to remove a protected class from its civil rights laws.
“HSB 242 subverts the constitutional guarantees of equality under the law and seeks to push trans Iowans back into the shadows,” said Iowa Safe Schools Executive Director Becky Tayler. “This bill sends a message that trans Iowans aren’t welcome in their own state. We will not stand by while the Iowa Legislature seeks to erase the students we serve.”
Some Republican lawmakers proposed removing gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act in past years, but those bills never got very far. Last year, a House subcommittee killed a bill that would have removed gender identity and added gender dysphoria to the disability category.
The bill follows a series of laws putting restrictions on transgender Iowans
The Iowa Legislature has passed several laws in recent years putting restrictions on transgender Iowans.
They include prohibiting transgender students from using school bathrooms that align with their gender identity, barring transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports, and banning gender-affirming medications and procedures for transgender youth. Republicans also passed laws banning instruction about gender identity and sexual orientation before seventh grade, and requiring school officials to notify parents if a student asks to use different pronouns.
The new bill would even take the term “gender identity” out of the law banning LGBTQ topics in elementary school and replace it with “gender theory.”
Last year, Gov. Kim Reynolds quietly introduced a bill that would have required transgender Iowans to include their sex at birth on their driver’s license and birth certificate. That was amended and approved by a House committee, but the bill did not get a vote in the full chamber.
