Iowa lawmakers plan to block Medicaid coverage for gender dysphoria treatments
Iowa Republican lawmakers are trying again to pass a ban on Medicaid funding going to gender-affirming care for transgender Iowans, this time by including language in the proposed budget for health and human services programs.
A Senate subcommittee advanced Senate Study Bill 1237 Wednesday, the HHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026. The measure included language that the funding allocated for Iowa's Medicaid program 'shall not be used for sex reassignment surgery or treatment related to an individual's gender dysphoria diagnosis.'
Iowa has attempted to ban Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care law before, but these laws were struck down by the courts for violating the Iowa Constitution and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the state's denial of two transgender women's transition-related care through Medicaid violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act. A Polk County District Court judge also ruled in 2021 that a law passed after that state Supreme Court decision, which amended the Iowa Civil Rights Act to allow for the exclusion of Medicaid coverage for transition-related health care, violated the Iowa Constitution.
Earlier this year, Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law a measure that removed gender identity as a protected class in the Iowa Civil Rights Act. As activists rallied against the measure for potentially allowing for the legal discrimination against transgender Iowans, one of the arguments posed by lawmakers was the fact that previous laws attempting to deny Medicaid coverage for transition-related health care were blocked through the state Civil Rights Act.
Keenan Crow, policy and advocacy director at One Iowa, said Thursday that one of the major differences between the language in this year's Senate appropriations bill and previous attempts to ban Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care was the reference to all 'treatment related to an individual's gender dysphoria diagnosis,' not just sex reassignment surgery. This could impact transgender Iowans' ability to access mental health care and other services, Crow said.
'Our first line of intervention on any gender dysphoria case is going to be mental health counseling, period, that is the primary treatment for gender dysphoria,' Crow said. 'And obviously I am not okay with restricting surgical care either, but to go even further and and get into restricting medications and mental health supports and all this other stuff, that is truly wrong.'
Even with the removal of gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, denying transgender Iowans gender-affirming care could still be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The 2021 district court ruling found the law prohibiting Medicaid coverage of transition care violated both state civil rights laws and the state constitution. The Iowa Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the law in 2023.
The House Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee met Thursday to discuss its version of the HHS budget bill, House Study Bill 342, which passed unanimously. The House legislation, in its current form, does not include the Senate's language.
But House Speaker Pat Grassley told reporters Thursday that the House supports restricting Medicaid funds going toward transition-related health care.
'We don't believe the taxpayers … should be paying for surgeries and other hormone therapies,' Grassley said. 'I know that there's a piece of that that's in the Senate bill, I think you will see a piece focused on those two things that I just said on our side. But again, we have not negotiated the Senate language out with them. They may have some different languages where we may settle, but I think you could expect to us to, at least, have that conversation about the taxpayer paying for those two items.'
The chair of the House HHS appropriations subcommittee Rep. Ann Meyer, R-Fort Dodge, said she has spoken with Grassley about the provision, and that there will be discussions with the full House Republican caucus. However, she said that the House would likely consider different language on the measure that would not impact Medicaid coverage for mental and behavioral health care for transgender Iowans.
'If this were to come before the House, we would just be talking about surgery and hormone therapy,' Meyer said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California Supreme Court clears way for Newsom's redistricting plan
The state Supreme Court opened the door Wednesday to plans by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats to redraw California's congressional districts in a gerrymander designed to pick up five seats, rejecting a Republican legal challenge. A lawsuit Monday by legislative Republicans contended the hastily drafted ballot measure, scheduled for votes in both houses on Thursday, has not been published long enough to meet the public-notice requirements in the state Constitution. But the court dismissed the suit Wednesday in a brief order with little explanation. The Republican lawmakers 'have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under (the) California Constitution,' the court said. Six justices, all appointed by Democratic governors, endorsed the order, while Justice Carol Corrigan, the only Republican appointee, was absent and did not participate, the court said. Newsom proposed the ballot measure, titled the Election Rigging Response Act, after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott introduced legislation to redraw the state's House districts and enable Republicans to pick up five seats in next year's elections. Democrats currently hold 43 of California's 52 House seats. The governor's measure, if approved by two-thirds majorities in both the Assembly and state Senate — where Democrats hold more than two-thirds of the seats — would redesign California's House seats for the rest of this decade in response to changes in Texas or any other state. Ballot measures approved by the voters in 2008 and 2010 established a bipartisan, independent commission to draft congressional and legislative districts in California, a task previously left up to state legislators, who design districts in most states. Newsom's proposed state constitutional amendment, ACA8, would temporarily suspend that commission if approved by a majority of the voters in November. While California law does not allow legislative action on a proposed measure until 30 days after it has been introduced, Democrats apparently sidestepped that deadline with a longstanding practice known as 'gut and amend' — using other legislation that had been pending for more than 30 days, erasing the contents and replacing them with the redistricting language. That was apparently enough to defeat the Republicans' lawsuit. Other Republican lawmakers, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, have promised additional challenges under the California Constitution and federal election laws.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
California Supreme Court rejects GOP effort to halt Newsom's redistricting push
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by state Republican legislators seeking to halt Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict California's congressional map. 'Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under California Constitution article IV, section 8,' reads a brief order posted to the docket. Newsom has hit back at Republican redistricting efforts in Texas by pushing for a special election this November to get voters' approval on a more favorable House map for Democrats in California in time for the 2026 midterms. The ruling paves the way for the California legislature to proceed with voting as soon as Thursday on a package that would set up the special election. Republicans' legal challenge revolved around a 30-day waiting period mandated under the state constitution before an introduced bill can be passed, unless three-fourths of lawmakers agree to waive the requirement. Democrats looked to get around the requirement by gutting the text of bills introduced in February and replacing them with the redistricting effort. Four state Republican legislators — Sen. Tony Strickland, Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, Assemblyman Tri Ta and Assemblywoman Kate Sanchez — went to the state's high court on Tuesday seeking to effectively block the redistricting effort. The petition sought to stop Democrats from moving ahead until Sept. 18, far past the window that state officials have said would be necessary to prepare for an election on Nov. 4. The lawmakers' attorneys acknowledged in court filings that it was a case of first impression but said that permitting Democrats' strategy would be 'comically absurd.' In a joint statement, the lawmakers stressed the court did not explain its ruling and said it is 'not the end of this fight.' 'This means Governor Newsom and the Democrats' plan to gut the voter-created Citizens Redistricting Commission, silence public input, and stick taxpayers with a $200+ million bill will proceed,' the statement reads. 'We will continue to challenge this unconstitutional power grab in the courts and at the ballot box. Californians deserve fair, transparent elections, not secret backroom deals to protect politicians,' it continued.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Texas House approves redrawn maps sought by Trump ahead of 2026 elections
AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas House on Wednesday approved redrawn congressional maps that would give Republicans a bigger edge in 2026, muscling through a partisan gerrymander that launched weeks of protests by Democrats and a widening national battle over redistricting. The approval came at the urging of President Donald Trump, who pushed for the extraordinary mid-decade revision of congressional maps to give his party a better chance at holding onto the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections. The maps, which would give Republicans five more winnable seats, need to be approved by the GOP-controlled state Senate and signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott before they become official. But the Texas House vote had presented the best chance for Democrats to derail the redraw. Democratic legislators delayed the vote by two weeks by fleeing Texas earlier this month in protest, and they were assigned round-the-clock police monitoring upon their return to ensure they attended Wednesday's session. Texas lawmakers return home after walking out of legislature and spending two weeks in Illinois to prevent GOP remapThe approval of the Texas maps on an 88-52 party-line vote is likely to prompt California's Democratic-controlled state Legislature this week to approve of a new House map creating five new Democratic-leaning districts. But the California map would require voter approval in November. Democrats have also vowed to challenge the new Texas map in court and complained that Republicans made the political power move before passing legislation responding to deadly floods that swept the state last month. Texas Republicans openly said they were acting in their party's interest. State Rep. Todd Hunter, who wrote the legislation formally creating the new map, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed politicians to redraw districts for nakedly partisan purposes. 'The underlying goal of this plan is straight forward: improve Republican political performance,' Hunter, a Republican, said on the floor. After nearly eight hours of debate, Hunter took the floor again to sum up the entire dispute as nothing more than a partisan fight. 'What's the difference, to the whole world listening? Republicans like it, and Democrats do not.' Democrats said the disagreement was about more than partisanship. 'In a democracy, people choose their representatives,' State Rep. Chris Turner said. 'This bill flips that on its head and lets politicians in Washington, D.C., choose their voters.' State Rep. John H. Bucy blamed the president. 'This is Donald Trump's map,' Bucy said. 'It clearly and deliberately manufactures five more Republican seats in Congress because Trump himself knows that the voters are rejecting his agenda.' Why dozens of Democrats left Texas and how Republicans want to punish themThe Republican power play has already triggered a national tit-for-tat battle as Democratic state lawmakers prepared to gather in California on Thursday to revise that state's map to create five new Democratic seats. 'This is a new Democratic Party, this is a new day, this is new energy out there all across this country,' California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said on a call with reporters on Wednesday. 'And we're going to fight fire with fire.' A new California map would need to be approved by voters in a special election in November because that state normally operates with a nonpartisan commission drawing the map to avoid the very sort of political brawl that is playing out. Newsom himself backed the 2008 ballot measure to create that process, as did former President Barack Obama. But in a sign of Democrats' stiffening resolve, Obama Tuesday night backed Newsom's bid to redraw the California map, saying it was a necessary step to stave off the GOP's Texas move. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach,' Obama said during a fundraiser for the Democratic Party's main redistricting arm. The incumbent president's party usually loses seats in the midterm election, and the GOP currently controls the House of Representatives by a mere three votes. Trump is going beyond Texas in his push to remake the map. He's pushed Republican leaders in conservative states like Indiana and Missouri to also try to create new Republican seats. Ohio Republicans were already revising their map before Texas moved. Democrats, meanwhile, are mulling reopening Maryland's and New York's maps as well. However, more Democratic-run states have commission systems like California's or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, can't draw new maps until 2028, and even then, only with voter approval. In Texas, there was little that outnumbered Democrats could do other than fume and threaten a lawsuit to block the map. Because the Supreme Court has blessed purely partisan gerrymandering, the only way opponents can stop the new Texas map would be by arguing it violates the Voting Rights Act requirement to keep minority communities together so they can select representatives of their choice. Democrats noted that, in every decade since the 1970s, courts have found that Texas' legislature did violate the Voting Rights Act in redistricting, and that civil rights groups had an active lawsuit making similar allegations against the 2021 map that Republicans drew up. Republicans contend the new map creates more new majority-minority seats than the previous one. Democrats and some civil rights groups have countered that the GOP does that through mainly a numbers game that leads to halving the number of the state's House seats that will be represented by a Black representative. State Rep. Ron Reynolds noted the country just marked the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act's passage and warned GOP members about how they'd be remembered if they voted for what he called 'this racial gerrymander.' 'Just like the people who were on the wrong side of history in 1965, history will be looking at the people who made the decisions in the body this day,' Reynolds, a Democrat, said. Republicans spent far less time talking on Wednesday, content to let their numbers do the talking in the lopsided vote. As the day dragged on, a handful hit back against Democratic complaints. 'You call my voters racist, you call my party racist and yet we're expected to follow the rules,' said State Rep. Katrina Pierson, a former Trump spokesperson. 'There are Black and Hispanic and Asian Republicans in this chamber who were elected just like you.' House Republicans' frustration at the Democrats' flight and ability to delay the vote was palpable. The GOP used a parliamentary maneuver to take a second and final vote on the map so it wouldn't have to reconvene for one more vote after Senate approval. House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced as debate started that doors to the chamber were locked and any member leaving was required to have a permission slip. The doors were only unlocked after final passage more than eight hours later. One Democrat who refused the 24-hour police monitoring, State Rep. Nicole Collier, had been confined to the House floor since Monday night. Some Democratic state lawmakers joined Collier Tuesday night for what Rep. Cassandra Garcia Hernandez dubbed 'a sleepover for democracy.' Republicans issued civil arrest warrants to bring the Democrats back after they left the state Aug. 3, and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott asked the state Supreme Court to oust several Democrats from office. The lawmakers also face a fine of $500 for every day they were absent.
