Iowa gives final approval to a bill removing gender identity protections despite massive 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 US 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 delivered a fierce defense of 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.'
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 Donald Trump.
Trump 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
Obama weighs in on Newsom's California redistricting strategy amid Texas debate
Obama endorses California Gov. Newsom's proposed redistricting strategy Former President Barack Obama is speaking out about Gov. Gavin Newsom's proposed redistricting plan for California. And he's all for it. During a National Democratic Redistricting Committee fundraiser in Martha's Vineyard on Aug. 19, Obama said he believes Newsom's strategy is a "responsible approach." California voters will get to decide on redistricting options in November. Citing Newsom, Obama said, "He said this is going to be completely responsible. We're not going to completely maximize it,' according to the Associated Press. "We're only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn't go into effect." Obama's remarks come as Texas Republicans are expected to vote on a new congressional map intended to flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats up for grabs in the 2026 elections. The vote comes after dozens of Democratic lawmakers ended a two-week walkout, temporarily delaying the bill's passage in a special session of the state legislature. Live updates: Texas Republicans set to approve Trump-backed new congressional map "I'd love to see the people of Texas reject what's happening, but it doesn't look like, unlike in California... they're being given the option of deciding whether this is a smart thing to do or not," Obama said, CNN reported on Aug. 20. In response, Newsom thanked Obama on social media on Aug. 20, saying the state has to stop President Trump's 'attempts to rig our elections.' "California will redraw our maps and neutralize any attempts Donald Trump makes to steal Congressional seats," Newsom said. "Thank you, President Obama for backing Proposition 50 and standing up for America's democracy." Meanwhile, Trump is continuing to encourage Texas GOP House members to do their part to ensure the state has a new redistricting map. '... which is exactly why Texas Republicans need to help us WIN the 2026 Midterm Elections, and pass their new Bill, AS IS, for the ONE BIG, BEAUTIFUL CONGRESSIONAL MAP!,' Trump said in a Truth Social post on Aug. 19. 'I call on all of my Republican friends in the Legislature to work as fast as they can to get THIS MAP to Governor Greg Abbott's desk, ASAP.'
Los Angeles Times
a minute ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why many voters in deep-red Northern California are fuming about Newsom's maps
COTTONWOOD — When the talk turned to politics at the OK Corral bar in this historic stagecoach town on Tuesday night, retired nurse Ovie Hays, 77, spoke for most of the room when she summed up her view of Gov. Gavin Newsom's redistricting plan. 'I don't want Democrats around,' she said. 'They have gone too far in controlling us. We won't have a say in anything.' Nearby, a man in hard-won cowboy boots agreed with Hays — using much more colorful language. He works as a ranch hand and said he'd just come from fixing a goat pen. 'The morons in charge, and the morons that put [those] morons in charge need to understand where their food comes from,' he said. He declined to see his name printed, like a lot of folks in this part of Shasta County and neighboring counties. In its current form, California's 1st Congressional District, which sweeps south from the Oregon border almost to Sacramento, is larger than Massachusetts or Maryland or eight other states. This is farm and forest country. From the glittering peaks and dense forests of Mt. Shasta and the Sierra Nevada, rivers course down to the valley floor, to vast fields of rice, endless orchards of peaches and golden, rolling grassland full of more cows than people. Voters here are concerned with policies that affect their water supply and forests, given that the timber industry limps along here and fires have ravaged the area in recent years. This is also Republican country. For the last 12 years, this district has been represented by Congressman Doug LaMalfa, a rice farmer from Oroville who is a staunch supporter of Donald Trump. But if voters approve the redistricting plan in November, the deep-red bastion that is LaMalfa's district will be cleaved into three pieces, each of them diluted with enough Democratic votes that they could all turn blue. The northern half of the district would be joined to a coastal district that would stretch all the way down to the Golden Gate Bridge, while the southern half would be jigsawed into two districts that would draw in voters from the Bay Area and wine country. Northern California finds itself in this situation because of power plays unleashed by President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Newsom and others. To ensure GOP control of the House of Representatives, Trump pressured Abbott to redraw Texas' congressional maps so Republicans could take more seats. Newsom responded by threatening to redraw California's maps to favor Democrats, while saying he'd holster this pistol if Texas did the same. The California Legislature is expected to approve a plan Thursday that would put new maps on the November ballot, along with a a constitutional amendment that would override the state's voter-approved, independent redistricting commission. If voters approve the new maps, they would go into effect only if another state performs mid-decade redistricting. Under the proposal, Democrats could pick up five seats currently held by Republicans, while also bolstering some vulnerable Democratic incumbents in purple districts. Now, voters in Northern California and other parts of the state find themselves at the center of a showdown. And from Marysville to Redding this week, many — including those who call themselves Democrats — said they were outraged at what they saw as another example of urban California imposing its will on rural California, areas that city people generally ignore and don't understand. 'Their needs and their wants are completely different than what we need here,' said Pamela Davis, 40, who was loading bags of chicken feed into the back of her SUV in Yuba City. Her children scrambled into their car seats, chatting happily about the cows and ducks they have at home on their farm. Davis, who said she voted for LaMalfa, said voters in California's cities have no understanding of water regulations or other policies vitally important to agriculture, even though what happens in farming areas is crucial to the state overall. 'We're out here growing food for everybody,' she said. 'Water is an issue all the time. That kind of stuff needs to be at the top of everybody's mind.' For years, folks in the so-called north state have chafed at life under the rule of California's liberal politicians. This region is whiter, more rural, more conservative and poorer than the rest of the state. They have long bemoaned that their property rights, grazing rights and water rights are under siege. They complain that the state's high taxes and cost of living are crushing people's dreams. The grievances run so deep that in recent years many residents have embraced a decades-old idea of seceding from California and forming a 'State of Jefferson.' Some residents, including LaMalfa, said if redistricting were to go through, it could further fuel those sentiments. And even some voters who said they abhorred Trump and LaMalfa and planned to vote in favor of the redistricting plan said they worried about the precedent of diluting the rural vote. Gail Mandaville, 76, was sitting with her book group in Chico and said she was in favor of the plan. 'I just am really, really afraid of the way the country is going,' the retired teacher said. 'I admire Newsom for standing up and doing something.' Across the table, Kim Heuckel, 58, said she agreed but also wondered whether a member of Congress from a more urban area could properly represent the needs of her district. 'I'm sorry, but they don't know the farmlands,' she said. 'We need our farmers.' We do, chimed in Rebecca Willi, 74, a retired hospice worker, but 'all the things we stand for are going down the drain,' and if the redistricting in Texas goes forward, 'we have to offset it because there is too much at stake.' In an interview, LaMalfa predicted that California's voters would reject the redistricting plan. 'We're not going anywhere without a fight,' he said. But should it pass, he predicted that his constituents would suffer. 'We don't have Sausalito values in this district,' he said, adding that politicians in the newly redrawn districts would be 'playing to Bay Area voters; they won't be playing towards us at all.' One of the biggest issues in his district recently, he noted, has been concern over wolves, who have been roaming ranch lands, killing cattle and enraging ranchers and other property owners. With redistricting, he said, 'if it doesn't go to the dogs, it will go to the wolves.'
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Pesticides put MAHA's power to the test
The New York Times reported last week that a draft of the Trump administration's upcoming MAHA report does not call for new restrictions on pesticides and describes existing procedures as 'robust.' MAHA-aligned activists recoiled. 'The MAHA draft report stating that the EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] pesticide review process is 'robust' is the biggest joke in American history. And it's not funny. It's deadly,' Zen Honeycutt, founder of the activist group Moms Across America, wrote in a post on the social platform X. Meanwhile, a Republican-authored House Appropriations bill seeks to block pesticide labels that go beyond what the EPA uses based on its current human health risk assessment. During a markup last month, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who chairs the Interior-Environment Appropriations subcommittee, said the measure says 'states cannot require a pesticide label that is different from the EPA label.' 'The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements. It ensures that one state is not establishing the label for the rest of the states,' Simpson said, adding that his comments were meant to be clarifying for all the ' MAHA moms that are out there that are concerned about this that have been calling.' But critics say such a move could prevent the use of updated science on pesticide labels. 'The language in here … says that EPA should only update labels according to the human health risk assessment. EPA, by law, is required to do those human health risk assessments every 15 years, but they often don't complete those in time,' said Geoff Horsfield, policy director at the Environmental Working Group. 'The way the law works currently is states have the power to do additional addendums, and that's where you see, say, a state requires an additional setback so that you can't spray within 250 feet of a school, or you're required to wear additional types of PPE [personal protective equipment],' he continued. 'Those types of restrictions are usually included in a label addendum … and those types of tweaks would be essentially prohibited by this language.' Also causing controversy is another provision related to 'forever chemicals,' toxic substances linked to diseases including cancer and have become widespread in the environment. The measure seeks to bar the EPA from enforcing a draft report that found that food from farms contaminated with these chemicals may pose cancer risks. MAHA activists have slammed both provisions, saying in a letter to President Trump that GOP support for the measures is 'unconscionable.'
