Latest news with #JonDunwell
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Despite pleas from constituents, Dunwell votes in favor of removing gender identity from civil rights code
Mar. 4—Even though every person who tuned into Rep. Jon Dunwell's listening session last week was against the bill removing civil rights protections from transgender Iowans, and even though they pleaded with the Republican lawmaker to vote against it, he sided with the majority to pass it and send it to the governor's office. The Iowa House on Feb. 27 voted 60-36 to pass the bill that removes gender identity as a protected class in the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Earlier that same day the Iowa Senate voted 33-15 to pass the bill. All three of the lawmakers representing Jasper County communities voted in favor. Before the Iowa Legislature put the bill to a vote, Dunwell hosted a Feb. 25 Zoom meeting with constituents of District 38 to discuss the bill. All of the speakers who shared their opinions were adamantly against the bill. Michelle Smith, of Mingo, said changing civil rights code in Iowa is a very slippery slope. "My son's best friend is very nervous she would lose her job just because they can, maybe they don't like the fact that she's transgender," Smith said. Others called the legislation "harmful" and "downright mean and hateful" and that it would take away human rights from transgender Iowans, despite claims from Republicans — which have overwhelmingly supported the bill — that it will not do so. Listening session participants also predicted more discrimination will follow. Whether or not the discrimination is widespread, participants said any kind of discrimination is "not acceptable." One constituent was surprised the bill made it through committee and that Dunwell was a supporter of it. Brad Magg, who ran against Dunwell in the 2024 election, questioned what the bill accomplishes. Dunwell said when something is included in a state's civil rights code it provides enhanced protections, and in many ways those protections work well when it comes to housing and employment. Dunwell argued most of these protections are covered by federal law or other laws already. "Where it gets to be challenging is in the situations we've seen with sports. Where it gets challenging is some of these things in terms of locker rooms," he said. "...The rights of young women become subordinate to the right of the transgender who may come into a bathroom and create a sense of discomfort." Dunwell said some laws passed with "overwhelming support from Iowans" like protecting girls sports or the bathroom bill have become the subject of lawsuits. "Remember, this bill is not taking away rights," Dunwell said. "It's taking away enhanced protections that are covered in the civil rights code. Every American has the same rights, the equal rights, and the ability to live their lives freely. This isn't a bill that says you can't have a surgery or transition after the age of 18." The lawmaker added the bill doesn't stop people from identifying as they want to identify, nor does it "outlaw any behavior in terms of it." Magg said Republican Rep. Brian Lohse, of Bondurant, disputes the claims that federal protections are in place for transgender Americans. Dunwell said Lohse is entitled to his opinion and that the issue of employment is totally covered by federal law. Housing does not apply automatically across the board. "The problem is when you put (gender identity) in the civil rights code, it gives de facto enhanced rights to one group over another, and that is the issue," Dunwell said. Following the vote, Dunwell posted an infographic from Iowa House Republicans on his Twitter/X page that reasoned the changes under House File 583 prevents biological males from using public bathrooms, dressing rooms and showers designated for women. The graphic goes on to say other freedoms remain intact. Freedoms such as speech, religion, assembly and protest, and the right to the petition the government and to bear arms. The graphic lists a bevy of freedoms and rights afforded through the Constitution, as well as protection from bullying in school and assault and other criminal or tortious behavior. But the bill does not let Iowans to access prison cells, homeless shelters, hotel rooms and other spaces designated for the opposite sex. It also prevents hormones and sex reassignment surgeries from being paid for by taxpayers. The graphic also says 27 states don't include gender identity in their civil rights code. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social interpreting the legislation as a way to remove "radical gender ideology" from Iowa's laws. THE ISSUE IS VERY PERSONAL FOR PEOPLE Danica Wilson, a resident of Newton whose wife and child are transgender, argued in the listening session that the bill does not lift transgender Iowans above anyone else. Wilson also pointed out that gender identity and sexuality was introduced in the civil rights code in 2007. Wilson does not believe the state has gone so far in 18 years to remove these protections. "No one is looking to remove protections from Americans with disabilities. No one is looking to remove protections from Black Americans or Americans of color or indigenous Americans," Wilson said. "Probably someone wants that. But not here. Not in Iowa. We enacted this in 2007 for a reason." Without these codes, Wilson argued discrimination against transgender people — "which is already extremely high" — will become legal. "Extra protections to a class like disabled Americans, people of color, queer Americans, queer Iowans does not give them a higher standing," she said. "It gives them an equal ground. If we take that equal ground away we will become lower class citizens. And that's unfair. Please listen to all of your constituents." Wilson questioned if Dunwell would support removing Iowans with disabilities or Black Iowans from the civil code. Dunwell said he would not support it at this time. But Wilson urged it was the same law. Dunwell disagreed and said there are differences and that no one is taking rights away from anyone. "The reality is your child has a right to identify how they like to identify, you have the right to identify as you want, you have the right to live your life how you want to live your life," Dunwell said. "We all live within laws, but the reality is this bill is not about taking away those rights." Dunwell acknowledged to listening session participants that every American has equal rights that need to be respected, and he said he is more than willing to look at examples or areas of discrimination and fixing them. But he said fixing these issues may not be through the civil rights code but through legislation. "That's exactly what we do every day up here," Dunwell said. LISTENING SESSION PARTICIPANTS WANT A NO VOTE Before Dunwell finished his listening session, he told constituents he will always be an advocate to get rid of agendas that sometimes creep into schools. But at the same time he stressed that schools cannot be valueless. One thing Dunwell said he has continually told members of his party is: "I'm all in favor of getting rid of agendas, but I'm not in favor of replacing it with your agenda," he said. "So we have to be careful about that. The values we have here in America are some of the values we're talking about here. We're talking about diversity. That is an American concept that's part of our Constitution." Teaching that value at schools and valuing diversity and respecting diversity is "absolutely important," Dunwell added. He agreed with Wilson that what the Constitution tries to do is balance rights. He also hoped the complaints that the bill will bring more discrimination and acts of hatred towards transgender Iowans don't come true. "If you hope this doesn't happen, vote no on the bill and then it really won't happen," Wilson said. "...I don't think a single one in this meeting who actually cares came here to say that you should vote for it. Every single of us who spoke said no. Your constituents are telling you what we want." Dunwell said, "You're not all my constituents. You're part of it and that's why I'm listening and having a conversation." Regardless, Wilson pleaded with Dunwell to "please vote no" on the bill. Dunwell later told Newton News he voted for HF 583 because Iowans continue to ask for common sense solutions. To him, leaving gender identity in the civil rights code infringes upon the rights of other Iowans, specifically women when it comes to bathrooms, locker rooms, sports and privacy. He also argued it stands in the way of Iowan's implementing common sense policies. Whether it was the incident at Pella Aquatic Center or the Forest City YMCA choosing to close men's and women's locker rooms, Dunwell said there is fear in violating the state's civil rights code. If gender identity was still in the civil rights code, Dunwell said it puts past legislation at risk, such as the bathroom bill and prohibiting gender affirming surgeries for minors. Dunwell said it also puts Iowans on the hook to pay for someone else's gender affirming care. "Every Iowan deserves to have their human rights protected, and to be treated with dignity and respect," Dunwell said. "Currently, Iowa Code with gender identity as a protected class falls short."
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rep. Jon Dunwell wants to rework Iowa's public school spending formula as early as next session
Feb. 27—Editor's note: This is the second in a series of articles covering the topics discussed at legislative gatherings hosted by the League of Women Voters of Jasper County. Iowa House Rep. Jon Dunwell, R-Newton, wants to propose a bill that would give public schools a three-year funding package to allow districts better planning. Although he was hesitant to mention this idea at a recent legislative gathering hosted by the League of Women Voters of Jasper County in the DMACC Newton Campus, Dunwell said it is a passion of his to introduce this bill next year. Then at the same time lawmakers would use those three years to rebuild the formula. "To figure out how we're allocating dollars to our schools, because it's a very complicated formula and it's not the same for every district," Dunwell said at the Feb. 15 gathering. "My four districts are all different from each other in terms of how the dollars come out. Rework the formula, rework the spending." Systems in government can be inefficient, he added, but giving schools a set expectancy of funding could help. Dunwell said when he spoke to officials at the Baxter school district, they told him if they knew a 2.5 increase in SSA was coming every year, for example, they would be fine. "We have a lot of what's called categorical dollars that the school can't access, categorical dollars they can't spend," Dunwell said, noting some districts have their hands tied. "So when you look at our penny sales tax, Newton here has primarily chosen to use that in the past couple years more for sporting facilities." Dunwell noted if the Newton Community School District had greater freedom in spending its money it might help them out. However, he also said there is a reason why categorical funding exists. But he ultimately believes lawmakers need to create time and space to rework a system that matches Iowa. "That's not an easy process," he said. "Not sure you can do that in a session. I say let's approve of a multi-year increase and then let's work on the system and see if we can't come out with a better, more efficient system, and get some of that money that's hung up in the system back into students and education." CONVERSATION STARTED OVER ESA FUNDING Discussion about Dunwell's idea surfaced when confronted with questions about the state's education savings accounts (ESAs), which are often referred to as vouchers by opponents. Dunwell condemned that term as offensive and argued that vouchers and ESAs mean different things. He also denounced claims that ESA funding is increasing by 44 percent while funding for public schools is increasing by 2.25 percent. While true, Dunwell suggested these statements are not giving the full truths. He explained the amount of funding for ESAs and public schools is drastically different. In total, Dunwell said the state will be devoting more than $3.9 billion in state aid to public schools in fiscal year 2026. ESAs will be getting more than $315 million. Dunwell also noted public schools will receive federal funds and property tax. "We implemented ESAs in a three-year phase in. This is the final phase in where anyone can qualify for an ESA," Dunwell said. "The amount of dollars that we send to an ESA account is the equivalent to the amount of dollars we put into supplemental aid per student in a public school." TAXPAYERS WONDER WHY SO MUCH IS INVESTED IN EDUCATION Iowa Sen. Ken Rozenboom of District 19 was also in attendance at the legislative forum. He reiterated the fact public schools receive local, state and federal dollars to fund education. Altogether, he claimed taxpayers are paying about $18,722 per student. The state provides about $8,000 per student. "Every classroom that has 20 kids, taxpayers are paying $342,000 a year. If a teacher makes $100,000 in pay and benefits, that still leaves $242,000 going to that classroom to teach our kids," he said. "Taxpayers would like to know where all that money goes if it's not going to the teacher ... where's all the rest of it?" Rozenboom has served in the Iowa Legislature for about 13 years, and every year he has heard people say the state is not giving enough money to public schools. He adamantly opposes these claims, saying the United States and Iowa spend a lot of money on education. But taxpayers ask him why it's so expensive. "From a taxpayer's perspective again, every private school student costs the state taxpayer $7,983 — that's all they get," Rozenboom said. "Every public school student, the taxpayer's on the hook for $18,722. More than double what the state contribution is."
