Transgender rights protections ended under bill hastily OK'd by Iowa lawmakers despite large, intense protests
The measure raced through the legislative process after first being introduced last week. The state Senate was first to approve the bill on Thursday, on party lines, followed by the House less than an hour later. Five House Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against it.
The bill would remove gender identity as a protected class from the state's civil rights law and explicitly define female and male, as well as gender, which would be considered a synonym for sex and "shall not be considered a synonym or shorthand expression for gender identity, experienced gender, gender expression, or gender role."
The measure would be the first legislative action in the U.S. to remove nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity, said Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights think tank.
The bill now goes to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who signed earlier policies banning sports participation and public bathroom access for transgender students. A spokesperson for Reynolds declined to comment on whether she would sign the bill. If she does, it will go into effect on July 1.
Hundreds of LGBTQ+ advocates streamed into the Capitol rotunda on Thursday waving signs reading "Trans rights are human rights" and chanting slogans including "No hate in our state!"
There was a heavy police presence, with state troopers stationed around the rotunda. Of the 167 people who signed up to testify at a 90-minute public hearing before a House committee, all but 24 were opposed to the bill.
Protesters who watched the vote from the House gallery loudly booed and shouted "Shame!" as the chamber adjourned. Many admonished Iowa state Rep. Steven Holt, who floor managed the bill and fiercely defended it before it passed.
Supporters of the change say the current law incorrectly codified the idea that people can transition to another gender and granted transgender women access to spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams that should be protected for people who were assigned female at birth. Holt said the inclusion of gender identity in the civil rights codes threatens recent "commonsense" laws to ban transgender participation in sports and access to bathrooms.
"The legislature of Iowa for the future of our children and our culture has a vested interest and solemn responsibility to stand up for immutable truth," Holt said.
The Iowa lawmakers' actions came as the Georgia House backed away from removing gender protections from the state's hate crimes law, which was passed in 2020 after the death of Ahmaud Arbery.
Iowa's current civil rights law protects against discrimination based on race, color, creed, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin or disability status.
Sexual orientation and gender identity were not originally included in the state's Civil Rights Act of 1965. They were added by the Democratic-controlled Legislature in 2007, also with the support of about a dozen Republicans across the two chambers.
Iowa state Rep. Aime Wichtendahl was the last Democrat to speak out Thursday against the bill removing those protections, becoming emotional as she offered her personal story as a transgender woman, saying: "I transitioned to save my life."
"The purpose of this bill and the purpose of every anti-trans bill is to further erase us from public life and to stigmatize our existence," Wichtendahl said. "The sum total of every anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ bill is to make our existence illegal."
When she finished speaking, she got a standing ovation from many legislators and onlookers in the gallery, reports CBS Des Moines affiliate KCCI-TV.
The station said that after the Senate passed the bill, a man started yelling from the gallery, calling lawmakers "facists" and asking "Who's next?" Threee state troopers carried him out. Others who were yelling were also removed
About half of U.S. states include gender identity in their civil rights code to protect against discrimination in housing and public places, such as stores or restaurants, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Some additional states do not explicitly protect against such discrimination but it is included in legal interpretations of statutes.
Iowa's Supreme Court has expressly rejected the argument that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity.
Several Republican-led legislatures are pushing to enact more laws this year creating legal definitions of male and female based on the reproductive organs at birth following an executive order from President Trump.
He also signed orders laying the groundwork for banning transgender people from military service and keeping transgender girls and women out of girls and women's sports competitions, among other things. Most of the policies are being challenged in court.
On Thursday night, Mr. Trump wrote on his Truth Social site: "Iowa, a beautiful State that I have won BIG every time, has a Bill to remove Radical Gender Ideology from their Laws. Iowa should follow the lead of my Executive Order, saying there are only two genders, and pass this Bill - AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. Thank you Iowa!"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's Your Call for Aug. 21
Will never vote for the GOP again Donald Trump has effectively ruined the Republican Party. I'll never vote Republican again. Never win another election If the Democrats' only policy is to fight Trump on everything, you will never win another election. Thank you for that. Poor planning I just delivered a grandson to Mid-Buch school, a two-lane road that was full of traffic. So that's the day MoDOT decided to mow the road and blocked one lane. Somebody needs to wake up out there. Pot calling kettle black Governor Kehoe accuses the Democrats of gerrymandering. President Trump admits to gerrymandering so he can gain another seat in the house in the state of Texas. Rejecting reality It's time for Trump to admit that Russia invaded Ukraine, not that Ukraine invaded Russia, but then that should come right after he admits that he lost the election to Biden. His ability to reject reality is truly amazing. Taking notes from Putin Is it not comforting to hear that our fearless leader is taking advice on how to run elections from someone who has basically run corrupt rigged elections for years? Putin says mail in ballots are bad, his little puppet jumps to issue an executive order to ban them. Pretty sure they discussed elections more than they did the war in Ukraine while in Alaska.
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump
NEW YORK — An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, ruling Thursday in New York state's lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was 'excessive.' After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.' Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday's decision. Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. He's also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims. Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom trolling spree shows signs of success; Bannon gives California governor credit
Nobody is getting under MAGA's skin quite like California Gov. Gavin Newsom. And it's not just comical — it's effective. Every cable news channel is talking about him, weekly if not daily. Newsom, who many believe is a likely contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, has taken a page straight from Donald Trump's playbook. He's leaning into Trump's bombastic posting style and serving it back to him, stunt for stunt. His trolling includes a photoshopped image of Mount Rushmore with his face on it, a mock-up of himself as a king on the cover of Time magazine, and even an AI-generated image of Newsom surrounded by Tucker Carlson, the late Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock — before writing in all caps that he hates Kid Rock. It sounds silly, and that's the point. The déjà vu effect is meant to hold up a mirror to Trumpworld, showing Republicans exactly how absurd their tactics look from the outside. And let's be honest — it's working. The numbers back it up. CNN's chief data analyst Harry Enten — Robby's favorite pollster — says the X account for Newsom's press office has seen a 450 percent increase in followers since June. Google searches for Newsom? Up 1,300 percent since June 1, and 500 percent since August 1. Those are the kinds of surges you don't see without traction. And there's a deeper story behind this strategy. In a recent interview with Fox 11 Los Angeles, Newsom explained the moment he decided to put his foot down against Trump: 'I think it connects here in L.A. and the fires, and how he was completely misrepresenting the facts—misinformation, disinformation. Elon Musk was piling on as well.' Reporter: 'You were really angry then. We spoke to you.' Newsom: 'Yea, because I've never seen anything like it, in the middle of an emergency, all the lies, all the misrepresentations, all the untruths — and they became gospel and they were spread around the world. And it was a big wake-up call, and we got back on our feet, and we go back on the offense.' He wasn't done there… 'And then when the National Guard was federalized, what the hell is going on? You saw ICE out here today. You know what that is? That is a preview for things to come. Mark my word. I said this a couple months ago with the National Guard — I said that was a preview for the rest of the country. That's exactly what happened in Washington, D.C. That's gonna continue to happen across this country unless we're successful.' And then he said: 'So yes, I've changed. The facts have changed. We need to change. And we need to stand up to this authoritarian.' Now, people can argue that Newsom is lowering himself by mocking the president. But one thing you can't deny is that it's been effective. And that's not just Democrats talking — even Steve Bannon is giving him credit. 'If you look at the Democratic Party, he's at least getting up there, and he's trying to imitate a Trumpian vision of fighting, right? He looks like the only person in the Democratic Party who is organizing a fight that they feel they can win.' Bannon went on to say, 'People in the MAGA movement and the America First movement should start paying attention to this, because it's not going to go away, they're only going to get more intense.' So here's the thesis: Gavin Newsom isn't just trolling Donald Trump. He's stress-testing a strategy — and the numbers, the buzz, and even Trump's allies all suggest it's working. For years, Democrats have struggled to figure out how to fight Trump on his own turf. Newsom might have just cracked the code.
