Gender identity would be removed from Iowa's Civil Rights Act under new bill
DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa House Republicans introduced a bill on Thursday that would remove gender identity from Iowa's Civil Rights Act.
In 2007 the Iowa Civil Rights Act was expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. The new bill, HSB 242, would completely remove gender identity as a protected class, meaning protections from discrimination in employment, housing, wages, etc. would be removed.
Critics against the bill say it would erase transgender Iowans' existence.
HSB 242 subverts the constitutional guarantees of equality under the law and seeks to push trans Iowans back into the shadows. 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.
Executive Director of Iowa Safe Schools Becky Tayler
Ames man charged for allegedly shooting Good Boy the dog
This is the worst bill we have ever seen come out of the Iowa Legislature, and that is a high bar. 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.
More than that, it removes their ability to get government documents that match their gender and legally defines them out of existence. The consequences of this bill will also serve to weaken protections for intersex and cisgender Iowans who fail to meet the rigid gender assumptions contained within.
This bill is pointless, unnecessary, and unbelievably cruel. 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.
One Iowa Executive Director Max Mowitz
Iowa Republican Representative Steve Holt, who brought forward the bill, said in a statement on Facebook that the bill doesn't legalize discrimination against transgender Iowans. His statement reads in part:
'Over the past few years, the Iowa Legislature has passed a number of common sense policies at the urging of Iowans, such as protections for girls' sports, locker rooms, and restrooms, and prohibiting gender affirming care for minors. I have reached the conclusion that these policies that are overwhelmingly supported by Iowans are at risk of being struck down in court so long as gender identity remains a protected class in Iowa code.'
Governor Kim Reynolds introduced a similar bill in 2024 that would have legally defined the term mother as being only female and would have required transgender Iowans to have their sex at birth and their gender identity listed on birth certificates and drivers or state licenses. That bill failed to advance.
HSB 242 has been assigned to a subcommittee, but a meeting date has not been scheduled.
Iowa News:
WHO 13 Farm Report: Friday, February 21
Gender identity would be removed from Iowa's Civil Rights Act under new bill
Ames man charged for allegedly shooting Good Boy the dog
DMPD says man who stole dog back from shelter shot at Iowa police who tried to arrest him
Springlike weather to follow frigid conditions in central Iowa
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate passes stripped-back version of ‘no-cause' eviction bill, but House likely to oppose it
Senators scaled back the bill to lessen the effect on tenants — raising the likelihood of a clash with the House. (Getty Images) The New Hampshire Senate passed a bill Thursday intended to make it easier for landlords to terminate tenancies. But before passing it, senators scaled back the bill to lessen the effect on tenants — raising the likelihood of a clash with the House. In current law, New Hampshire landlords must cite a specific reason to initiate evictions, including nonpayment of rent, failure to follow the lease, behavior affecting the health or safety of others, or a business reason by the landlord, such as a renovation. As originally passed by the House, House Bill 60 would have allowed for 'no-fault' or 'no-cause' termination of tenancies for leases six months or longer. In those cases, landlords could ask a tenant to leave at the end of the lease period with no reason given. Republicans argue allowing no-cause evictions would let landlords treat leases as fixed-length contracts with tenants, and relieve them of the burden of finding a reason if they no longer wished to rent to someone. But Democrats and legal aid organizations argue it would increase the pace of evictions and could make it easier for landlords to discriminate. On Thursday, the Senate dramatically altered the bill, keeping the 'no-fault' evictions but adding a trigger provision that prevents application of the law unless the state has had a 4% or higher rental vacancy rate for four quarters in one calendar year, as determined by the Federal Reserve. Currently, the Federal Reserve estimates New Hampshire has exactly a 4% vacancy rate, citing U.S. Census data. The Senate's version would also allow landlords to use no-cause evictions only with leases of 12 months or more. And it would exempt tenants who are subject to no-cause evictions from having those evictions added to their record for the purpose of rental applications and tenant screening reports, easing concerns from housing advocates about the effects of the original bill. Those changes earned the support of Senate Democrats; the amended bill was voted through unanimously Thursday. But before the bill can go to Gov. Kelly Ayotte's desk, it must receive final sign-off from the House, and some House Republicans have made it clear they are not happy with the Senate's changes. Rep. Joe Alexander, a Goffstown Republican and the chairman of the Housing Committee, said he will be requesting a Committee of Conference with the Senate to attempt to find a compromise when the House meets on Thursday. The Senate's version of the bill does not fit with the House's position, Alexander said in an interview. And he noted that the full House already voted down two attempted Democratic amendments to add trigger provisions. 'The House position is the lease is a contract,' Alexander said. 'And (in) every other place in contract law, when a contract ends, both parties go their separate ways unless there's conversation about renewing it. So we're just trying to bring it in line with all other contract law in the state.' Elliott Berry, a former attorney for New Hampshire Legal Assistance who has been following the bill, said even with the Senate changes, he and other housing advocates believe HB 60 could harm tenants. 'It's going to make a lot of landlords take the easy way out,' he said. 'And so tenants who for whatever reason feel any kind of antagonism towards them in general, well-based or not, they're going to be in jeopardy.'
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The governor, House, and Senate each created a budget for NH. Now, they must agree on one.
The rear of the New Hampshire State House on May 19, 2025. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin) When the New Hampshire Senate approved its proposal for the state's two-year spending plan on Thursday, it set off a new phase of the lengthy state budgeting process. That process began in February when Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte released her budget proposal. Then, House lawmakers got their turn to rework that proposal and in April, they approved their version of the budget before handing it off to the Senate. Soon, the House and Senate will enter what is known as a committee of conference, where negotiators will hash out the differences of their two budgets with the hope of agreeing on one proposal. Once that is complete — and both chambers sign off once again — Ayotte will have the opportunity to approve the budget, veto it, or allow it to go into law without her signature. The new fiscal year begins July 1, so officials from the three bodies have to approve a single budget by then in order to fund the government. Perhaps the most contentious disagreement between the Legislature and the governor was on revenue projections. Months of lagging business tax revenues, combined with the millions of dollars the state must pay out to victims of a massive abuse scandal in its juvenile justice system and the end of pandemic-era federal funding, have made this a particularly tight fiscal environment. In February, Ayotte unveiled her budget proposal and with it her revenue projections, which were immediately labeled as optimistic. Ayotte predicted the state's revenues would rebound quickly and provide the state with around $6.3 billion over the next two years. House Republicans were quick to balk at those projections. 'We're just not as optimistic as the governor is with growth,' Rep. John Janigian, a Salem Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, told the Bulletin at the time. 'We think it's a steamship: It takes time to turn it. It's moving in a positive direction, but at a slower rate.' The House Ways and Means Committee projected $5.8 billion in revenue later in February. Ayotte rejected those figures, telling reporters in April she was 'confident that the revenue numbers that I laid out in my budget are actually more accurate revenue numbers than the lower proposals made by the House.' The Senate's projections ended up falling in the middle. The Senate Ways and Means Committee voted to accept a projection of roughly $6.1 billion total revenue over two years. That's about $228.1 million above the House's estimate, but $172.1 million below Ayotte's. While the Senate landed closer to the governor than the House did, Ayotte still expressed her frustration. 'I disagree with that vote,' she said at a press conference soon after. 'And I also will tell you this: I don't understand why Republicans are joining with Democrats who want to put us in a position to raise taxes instead of adopting, I think, what would be a more accurate revenue picture for the state.' When she announced her budget in February, Ayotte emphasized the need for belt-tightening, calling her plan a 'recalibration' during a speech in the State House. Still, her budget kept many agencies and programs intact. In some cases, it expanded programs. That includes the state's voucher-like education freedom accounts, which she proposed opening to students attending public school at all income-levels, increased funding for state services for people with disabilities aimed at eliminating the waitlists for those services, and an additional $32 million for special education. Ayotte also tried to recoup funds through changes to Medicaid. She proposed instituting premiums on some recipients based on their income, charging higher copays for prescriptions, and allowing Medicaid to purchase name-brand drugs when those drugs are cheaper than generics. Each chamber's proposal was determined largely by how optimistic or pessimistic their revenue projections were. So for the House, which projected a gloomy financial outlook, steep cuts to Ayotte's budget were proposed. 'We must fit (the budget) to the revenues proposed by the House Ways and Means Committee,' Rep. Ken Weyler, a Kingston Republican and chairman of the House Finance Committee, said during a hearing in March. 'That revenue differs from the governor's estimate by almost $800 million in an almost $16 billion budget. Obviously, this is a bigger challenge than most budgets, but less than some previous challenges.' Weyler said the governor's budget is 'on a path to overspend by about $50 million.' When Republican House lawmakers got their hands on the budget, they decided to cut costs by axing several agencies. They voted to eliminate the Office of the Child Advocate, the state's child-focused watchdog overseeing New Hampshire's child welfare, juvenile justice, and youth care systems. They moved to disband the Housing Appeals Board, which allows residents to contest decisions from their local planning and zoning officials. They proposed eliminating the State Council on the Arts, the Human Rights Commission, and the Right-To-Know Ombudsman, among others. The House's budget also included a lot of layoffs. It proposed eliminating 190 positions in the Department of Corrections, 34 in the Liquor Commission, 27 in the Department of Education, 14 in the Department of Business and Economic Affairs, eight in the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, eight in the Department of Safety, five in the Secretary of State's Office, and three in the Insurance Department. Among the most controversial moves made by the House were a 3% cut to Medicaid reimbursement rates, a cut to the $1 billion Ayotte set aside in an effort to eliminate the developmental disability services waitlist, and some funding for community mental health centers. It also increased some state fees to help make up for lost revenue, including fees for vanity license plates, dam registrations, wetlands dredging and filling, sewage, state elevator inspections, trucking, agricultural products and equipment, fisheries habitats, driver's licenses, and motor vehicle titles. 'Preliminarily, there's been a difference between what (House Ways and Means) see as revenue and what your budget proposes,' Weyler told Ayotte during a hearing in February. 'We may have to be making some further adjustments as we go, and I hope you will support them.' Ayotte ultimately didn't support many of those adjustments. In May, after the House finalized its budget, she told reporters, 'My takeaway is that my budget was a lot better.' When the Senate's turn to amend the budget began last month, senators quickly moved to reverse the Medicaid reimbursement rate cut and the cuts to developmental disability services and community mental health centers. However, on many of the others they looked for a middle ground. For example, they restored the Office of the Child Advocate, but with reduced funding. Their proposal calls for four positions to be eliminated from the office as opposed to all nine. Sen. Sharon Carson, who spearheaded the proposal, told the Bulletin she 'know(s) the value of the work they do' so they were 'trying to find a middle ground that the House will accept.' They took a similar approach to several of the other agencies. For the State Council on the Arts, (which they also debated axing, but eventually reversed course) senators turned it into a volunteer council, appropriating just $1 but allowing it to accept donations and tap into a business tax credit. They also reinstated the State Commission on Aging but cut about $130,000 to bring its total funding down to $150,000. Ayotte's proposal came out to a total of roughly $16 billion. The House's proposal trimmed that down to spend a total of around $15.5 billion over two years. And the Senate, seeking a middle ground, created a budget that spends roughly $15.9 billion. The current state budget for fiscal years 2024-25 is $15.4 billion. Now, the Senate and House must agree on one proposal. The House is allowed to accept all the amendments made by the Senate outright, but it is most likely that the two chambers enter into the committee of conference process to hash out differences between their budgets. Their deadline to pass a single budget is June 26. Once they approve a budget, it goes to Ayotte's desk and the governor can sign it, veto it, or allow it to be enacted without her signature. Ayotte does not have the option of a line-item veto — as many other state constitutions allow their governors to do — which means she has to accept or reject the budget in its entirety. The state's new fiscal year begins July 1. The new budget must be finalized and enacted by then to fund the government.
Miami Herald
28 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Tesla Loses Billions in Value as Musk-Trump Feud Heats Up Over EV Subsidies
President Trump has threatened to end government subsidies and contracts to Elon Musk's companies, with Tesla facing billions of dollars in annual losses without various state and federal programs. Musk escalated the feud with a series of posts on X, formerly Twitter, attacking the president, erasing $150 billion in Tesla's market value on Thursday before a Friday rebound. After the market's close on Friday, Tesla's market cap stood at about $950 billion, down from roughly $1.1 trillion at the week's start. Musk's specific criticisms of Trump's bill include the entrepreneur saying: "There is no change to tax incentives for oil & gas, just EV/solar," according to The Hill. The Tesla CEO also said on X: "Abruptly discontinuing the energy tax incentives would jeopardize America's energy autonomy and the dependability of our power grid." On Thursday, President Trump said on his Truth Social platform that the "easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts," Reuters reports. The president also posted on Truth Social: "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" The House of Representatives version of Trump's bill, passed in late May, proposes to largely end the federal $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicle (EV) purchases by the end of 2025. If passed by the Senate, eliminating the federal EV subsidy could erase $1.2 billion in Tesla's annual profits, according to Reuters. Separate Senate legislation that removes California's EV sales mandates could lower Tesla's yearly sales by another $2 billion. Tesla earned almost $2.8 billion last year by selling regulatory credits to other automakers, helping competitors meet government-established car emissions rules, many of which are in California. Since Tesla only makes all-electric vehicles, it earns a surplus of regulatory credits that it can sell to other automakers. Competitors who don't manufacture enough zero-emission vehicles face steep fines if they don't purchase regulatory credits from Tesla. Republicans in Congress are working to lower some of the federal waivers California needs for stricter emissions standards than the federal government, and if rolled back, Tesla's regulatory credit profits would take a significant hit. Tesla plans to launch its driverless robotaxi rideshare service in Austin, Texas, this month, subject to government oversight. Still, analysts don't believe Musk's feud with Trump will impact the autonomous Tesla fleet's debut. Gene Munster, Tesla investor and managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, said: "In my view, the White House has little to gain in standing in front of autonomy, given autonomy is central to physical AI, and for the US to be a leader globally in AI, it also needs to be a leader in physical AI," according to Business Insider. Autoblog contacted Tesla for comment but didn't receive a response. Elon Musk spent over $250 million to help re-elect Donald Trump, with Tesla's stock increasing after the President's victory. However, Musk's controversial time as a special government employee, most notably with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), triggered severe stock declines at Tesla, ultimately causing the entrepreneur to step away from politics and focus more on his company. Musk's decision to go on the offensive against Trump could further erase any benefits he and Tesla initially gained through their partnership, as reflected in this past week's stock market. Gene Munster estimated in a Friday report that eliminating EV tax credits could reduce Tesla's 2025 deliveries by 15%. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
