Protesters Rally Against Move to Remove Gender Identity from Iowa Civil Rights Act

Your contribution fuels the stories that shape Decorah—make a difference today. Hundreds protested Monday in the halls of the Iowa State Capitol as legislation to remove gender identity as a protected class from the Iowa Civil Rights Act advanced through the House committee process. House Study Bill 242 would remove "gender identity" as a class protected through the Iowa Civil Rights Act against discrimination in employment, wages, public accommodations, housing and education. The state civil rights act offers similar protections on the basis of race, creed, sex and physical disability. The bill repealing the 2007 addition for gender identity protections was passed with a 13-8 vote by the full House Judiciary Committee Monday afternoon. A public hearing on the measure was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Thursday, Feb. 24. Thursday is also the earliest date for the legislation to be debated on the House floor. Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, was the floor manager in 2007 for the bill adding gender identity and sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act. At the House Judiciary Committee meeting, she said passing these protections for LGBTQ+ Iowans was her "proudest moment" as a state lawmaker. Wessel-Kroeschell asked if Republicans could say the same as they passed this measure. "Is this your proudest moment?" Wessel-Kroeschell asked. "Is this what you want to be remembered for? Because if it is, if you want to be remembered for taking away the rights of our transgender citizens, I have to tell you, you make me very sad." As lawmakers heard from members of the public in a subcommittee meeting on the bill Monday morning, the room was full with a large group protesting outside. Chants of "trans rights are human rights" and "we won't go quiet" were heard outside the meeting as supporters of the bill spoke; protesters shouted "shame" at Reps. Steven Holt and Samantha Fett as they entered the meeting. Critics called the bill unnecessary and discriminatory, calling for lawmakers to focus on issues like housing, child care and environmental protections instead of passing legislation that would allow for discrimination against a minority group. Diane Crookham-Johnson of Oskaloosa, the former finance chair for the Iowa Republican Party and former State Board of Education member under Govs. Terry Branstad and Kim Reynolds, said this bill will have a larger impact on Iowa communities than some may realize. "I stand before you as a local attorney who has assisted in 2024 more than eight Mahaska County residents on legal processes and documents so that they can confirm their gender identity—folks who work in our businesses, attend our schools, attend our churches, folks who shop in our stores, rent our apartments and buy our homes, folks who pay property taxes to support all of our communities," Crookham-Johnson said. "This bill doesn't impact some unknown person over there. This bill impacts people in your districts, people in your states, and even your most conservative counties of Iowa." Supporters argue bill would 'protect women.' But multiple speakers supporting the measure said removing "gender identity" from ICRA would "protect women," by preventing transgender women from entering women's spaces like restrooms. Evelyn Nikkel with the PELLA PAC, a conservative Pella-based organization that supports removing both gender identity and sexual orientation from the state civil rights code, told lawmakers that the measure provides elevated protections for transgender Iowans at the expense of others' rights. "Because these terms are codified in our law, gender identity is magically elevated to a protected class with preferential and unfair advantage," Nikkel said. "… Biological males with gender dysphoria steal biological women's sports achievements, trespass on their privacy and accost them in women's prisons, restrooms and locker rooms. We are being robbed of our dignity and respect, which is morally indefensible." Amber Williams with Inspired Life, a conservative religious organization, shared a story of encountering a person she identified as transgender in a women's bathroom as an example for the need for sex-segregated spaces that can only be accessed by people designated as "female" at birth. "Just two weeks ago, I walked into a women's restroom in a public place and immediately felt uneasy when I saw a biological man coming out of a stall," Williams said. "I couldn't shake the sensation of discomfort and heightened awareness that many women would feel in these situations. I quickly left without using the restroom, because in that moment, my sense of safety and privacy had been compromised. This isn't about hatred or exclusion. It's about acknowledging that women have a right to feel secure in spaces meant for them." Opponents say 'separate but equal' language is troubling. The bill contains language that "equal" accommodations do not mean "same" or "identical," and that "separate accommodations are not inherently unequal." Rep. Ross Wilburn, D-Ames, said this provision in the bill "takes us back" to the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld "separate but equal" accommodations on the basis of race. Paden Sheumaker, a Black queer Iowan with the LGBTQ+ advocacy group with One Iowa, said her ancestors had to fight for civil rights in the country and in Iowa—and that steps to strip civil rights from a group of people "would be to spit in the face of everyone who has fought tooth and nail for these rights. "Have you ever been discriminated against just for being who you are, just for existing as yourself?" Sheumaker said. "I have, and I can tell you, it is dehumanizing. It is demeaning, it is disheartening and it is terrifying. Many queer and transgender and gender nonconforming Iowans have felt this—and that is while our rights are protected, that's with the laws and the power of the state behind us to protect us. I cannot imagine how much worse that discrimination would be if the state would then choose to abandon that protection. I do not want to live in a state where that is something you're working toward." Similar legislation was introduced during the 2024 legislative session but failed to advance. In discussions on that bill, speakers said the measure may not hold up to legal challenges. Pete McRoberts with the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa said Thursday said that Iowa, under Democratic control, chose to add gender identity and sexuality to ICRA in 2007 — and the fact that these rights were voluntarily extended "triggers an obligation on the state to preserve those rights." McRoberts pointed to U.S. Supreme Court precedent that found when a legislature grants protected status to a group when not constitutionally required to, removing those protections is a violation of the Equal Protections Clause. There are currently 23 states that have protections against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in state law, according to the Human Rights Campaign. McRoberts said none of the states that have established these protections have repealed them. "We should not be the first—not just on moral grounds, but on legal grounds," he said. "And that's something which we hope legislators will think very thoroughly and thoughtfully about. Whether they would have voted to expand the Civil Rights Act or not, that's a separate question. But that's not the question in front of us. The question in front of us is, do you remove a specific person who is part of a group of identifiable people who've been protected under the Civil Rights Act?" Fett, R-Carlisle, that the measure was the "right move" for Iowans, and is a necessary step to allow Iowa to enact measures passed in previous years related to transgender people on issues like transgender women competing in women's sports and preventing transgender people from using restrooms or locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity. "Those protections are at risk, which is why this bill is important," Fett said. "This bill is not about discrimination and was carefully crafted, and I want to make sure people understand that. But we're going to have activists that try to use subterfuge to create false narratives." At the committee meeting on the bill, multiple Democrats urged their colleagues in the majority to focus on issues like child care and housing to help Iowans rather than turning their attention to "culture war" topics. Holt, R-Denison, said these discussions were an attempt by Democrats to distract from the fact that they did not support "women's rights" for women to have separate accommodations and facilities from men and transgender women. "Liberal Democrats who once championed women's rights, who helped forge women's sports, Title IX, all these issues, are now perfectly okay with the erasing of women," Holt said. "The discrimination is happening now, ladies and gentlemen. The discrimination is happening now—this attitude, this set of attitudes and ways and behaviors that support the belief that biological males should be allowed against biological females in sports in spite of physiological advantages, and that men should be allowed to invade the bathrooms and private spaces of biological females. … That's the discrimination that's happening right now." He said transgender Iowans will still be protected under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and by Iowa law, but that current protections on the basis of gender identity have resulted in the "infringement" of rights for other Iowans. Become a part of the exclusive circle! Subscribe to the newsletter for free and gain access to special offers, bonus content and insider perks.