A subcommittee hearing Monday morning on a bill that would remove gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act drew heavy protests. The hearing had to be paused at one point due to loud chants drowning out speakers.Iowa State Patrol troopers told protestors to clear the hallway outside of the meeting and had to remove at least one speaker from the meeting itself after they would not leave. According to the Iowa State Patrol, 26-year-old Veronica Hernandez and 20-year-old Bellona River Providence Allou were arrested and charged with interference with official acts.State law currently prevents decisions relating to employment, housing, public accommodations, education and credit from being impacted by someone's gender identity. House Study Bill 242 would remove those protections for transgender Iowans.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.”One Iowa's director of policy and advocacy, Kenan Crow, called the bill, which advanced through subcommittee with a 2-1 vote Monday morning, "the most harmful piece of legislation I have ever seen come out of the Iowa legislature."It then cleared the House Judiciary Committee, 13-8.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.”» Subscribe to vlog's YouTube page» Download the free vlog app to get updates on the go: Apple | Google PlayAmber 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 situation. 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.”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.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?”Samantha Fett, R-Carlisle, said 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.”Bill passes House Judiciary CommitteeIn a 13-8 vote, members of the Iowa House Judiciary Committee voted to advance the bill to the House floor for a full vote. All but one Republican voted yes on the piece of legislation. All seven Democrats voted no Monday afternoon. Democrats spoke out against the bill and urged Republicans to focus on other issues like cost of living and education. "This bill is legalizing discrimination for vulnerable folks," Rep. Lindsay James (D-Dubuque) said. "This bill is legalizing hatred."Republicans argued the bill would protect women and it wouldn't remove rights for any Iowans."The removal of gender identity as a protected class means that transgender rights are not elevated above women and other citizens," Rep. Steven Holt (R-Denison) said. "Transgender rights will continue to be protected, just as are the rights of all Americans." Outside the committee hearing, a crowd of protestors chanted while lawmakers debated back and forth. The Senate version of the bill will be in subcommittee Tuesday. Information from the Iowa Capital Dispatch was used in this article.
DES MOINES, Iowa — A subcommittee hearing Monday morning on a bill that would remove gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act drew heavy protests.
The hearing had to be paused at one point due to loud chants drowning out speakers.
This content is imported from Twitter.
You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Iowa State Patrol troopers told protestors to clear the hallway outside of the meeting and had to remove at least one speaker from the meeting itself after they would not leave.
According to the Iowa State Patrol, 26-year-old Veronica Hernandez and 20-year-old Bellona River Providence Allou were arrested and charged with interference with official acts.
State law currently prevents decisions relating to employment, housing, public accommodations, education and credit from being impacted by someone's gender identity. House Study Bill 242 would remove those protections for transgender Iowans.
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.”
AP Photo/Hannah Fingerhut
Protesters filled the Iowa state Capitol in Des Moines on Monday, Feb. 24, 2025 to denounce a bill that would strip the state civil rights code of protections based on gender identity.
One Iowa's director of policy and advocacy, Kenan Crow, called the bill, which advanced through subcommittee with a 2-1 vote Monday morning, "the most harmful piece of legislation I have ever seen come out of the Iowa legislature."
It then cleared the House Judiciary Committee, 13-8.
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.”
»
» Download the free vlog app to get updates on the go: |
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 situation. 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.”
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.
Similar legislation was 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 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 . 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?”
Samantha Fett, R-Carlisle, said 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.”
Bill passes House Judiciary Committee
In a 13-8 vote, members of the Iowa House Judiciary Committee voted to advance the bill to the House floor for a full vote. All but one Republican voted yes on the piece of legislation. All seven Democrats voted no Monday afternoon.
Democrats spoke out against the bill and urged Republicans to focus on other issues like cost of living and education.
"This bill is legalizing discrimination for vulnerable folks," Rep. Lindsay James (D-Dubuque) said. "This bill is legalizing hatred."
Republicans argued the bill would protect women and it wouldn't remove rights for any Iowans.
"The removal of gender identity as a protected class means that transgender rights are not elevated above women and other citizens," Rep. Steven Holt (R-Denison) said. "Transgender rights will continue to be protected, just as are the rights of all Americans."
Outside the committee hearing, a crowd of protestors chanted while lawmakers debated back and forth. The Senate version of the bill will be in subcommittee Tuesday.
Information from the was used in this article.
