Six months after Iowa removed gender identity as a protected class from its civil rights laws, the state now must pay $85,000 to LGBTQ+ students ejected from the Iowa Capitol in 2020, among them trans students who were denied access to the building’s bathrooms.
Iowa Safe Schools, an LGBTQ+ youth advocacy group, sponsored the visit of about 150 Iowa students and chaperones to the Capitol to meet with legislators in 2020. The group’s then-executive director, Nate Monson, told the Iowa Register that, at the time, Iowa State Patrol troopers told several transgender students they couldn’t use one of the bathrooms and had to use a gender-neutral restroom instead.
When Monson intervened, arguing that the troopers’ directions were inconsistent with state law, the entire group was ordered to leave.
“I went up to the trooper and said, ‘No, that’s not what the law says,’” Monson said. “The civil rights code includes gender identity. He told me it did not. Then I told him yes, it did. And he said, ‘Well it doesn’t include bathrooms.’”
The students were then told to leave the Capitol altogether, that they had been banned from the Capitol grounds, and they would be arrested if they returned.
The students and several Iowa Safe Schools leaders filed suit in 2022, alleging sex-based discrimination, harassment, and unlawful retaliation.
Under terms of a settlement agreement — filed in July and approved by the Iowa State Board of Appeals on Tuesday — the state will pay the students and group leaders to settle the case without admitting any wrongdoing.
“These individuals were exercising their constitutional and civil rights when they were singled out and removed from the Iowa Capitol solely because of their identity and their affiliation with an LGBTQ+ organization,” said Devin C. Kelly, an attorney for the plaintiffs, following the Board of Appeals approval.
“At a time when LGBTQ+ Iowans and their families continue to face growing challenges, this settlement reaffirms a simple truth: all Iowans are equal under the law,” Kelly added.
In a letter to the Board of Appeals, state attorney Jeffrey Peterzalek made it a point to say that the plaintiffs’ legal claims “would now not be allowed” under the updated Civil Rights Act.
With Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds’ signature in February, Iowa became the first state in the nation to remove a previously protected class from its civil rights laws. The change took effect July 1.
The law, which will take effect on July 1, 2025, prohibits state universities like Iowa State from starting, maintaining or funding DEI offices or positions unless required by law or for accreditation. The Iowa Board of Regents imposed directives and a Dec. 31 deadline to eliminate functions like the Center.
Holding a ‘funeral’ for a community resource
ISU Students Against SF 2435 Coalition published a mock obituary and shared it with the Ames Tribune prior to Wednesday’s event. The obituary said the Center was “killed” on Dec. 31, “with the assistance of Iowa State University.”
“This marks a great loss for the community, and we encourage those impacted to join us and find community in these trying times,” the mock obituary reads.
Several students addressed the crowd on Wednesday, noting how the Center provided them with a safe space to connect with their community. They said they are frustrated that it’s closing. Several said the presence of the Center was a key factor in attending the university.
The Center is a place where LGBTQIA+ students could go for safety and support, Iowa State student Silvera Dudenhoefer said on Wednesday.
“It was a space that celebrated queer joy and accomplishment, academically and personally,” Dudenhoefer said. “Above all, it was a clear mark that LGBTQIA+ students mattered to this school.”
By removing the LGBTQIA+ from the Center, Dudenhoefer said the Board of Regents has “shown who they’re willing to push aside in an effort to comply.”
The Center, according to Iowa State’s website, is still open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, on the fourth floor of the Iowa State Memorial Union. Iowa State now lists The Center under the umbrella of multicultural student affairs.
‘The Center’ has been a LGBTQIA+ student resource for more than 30 years
Iowa State University’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Student Services (LGBTSS) opened on Nov. 8, 1992, and was housed above Student Services. It was initially staffed by student volunteers until 1997, when four full-time staff members were brought on.
The LGBTSS was rebranded as The Center for LGBTQIA+ Student Success in 2019 and relocated to the Memorial Union.
The Center is “a space for you to be yourself, find and build community, get involved, and explore lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and ally life at Iowa State University,” according to the school’s website.
Senator Quirmbach voices support for ‘encouraging’ campus environment
Senator Herman Quirmbach of Ames attended Wednesday’s gathering and addressed the crowd. He said Iowa State has a responsibility to provide a supportive and encouraging environment for every student, regardless of their background.
“This university is failing in its moral responsibility,” Quirmbach said. “The members of the Board of Regents are failing. And the legislature? Don’t get me started.”
Iowa State graduate student Amanda Thomas assured the gathered students that they have allies willing to support them.
“When attacks like this hurt my friends, my family, my coworkers and my peers, it hurts me and that’s not okay,” Thomas said. “Allies are here, even if you can’t see them.”
Reverand Kelli Clement from the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Ames said students are learning to take the “stone in their shoe” that came with Senate File 2435 being passed.
“When you find your people, it is a holy moment,” Clement said. “And the loss of this center does not mean that your people go away.”
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa moved to remove gender identity protections from the state’s civil rights code Thursday despite massive protests by opponents who say it could expose transgender people to discrimination in numerous areas of life.
The Iowa House approved the bill that would strip the state civil rights code of protections based on gender identity, less than an hour after the state Senate backed the legislation. First introduced last week, the measure raced through the legislative process.
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 the public hearing before a House committee, all but 24 were opposed to the bill.
Protesters that watched the vote from the House gallery loudly booed and shouted “Shame!” as the House adjourned. Many admonished Iowa state Rep. Steven Holt, who floor managed the bill and delivered a fierce defense of it before it passed.
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 removing nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity, said Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights think tank.
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.
The legislation now goes to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who has been supportive of efforts to limit gender identity protections.
The Iowa lawmakers’ actions came on the same day 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 Republicans say their changes are intended to reinforce the state’s ban on sports participation and public bathroom access for transgender students. If approved, the bill would go to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who signed those policies into law. A spokesperson for Reynolds declined to comment on whether she would sign the bill.
V Fixmer-Oraiz, a county supervisor in eastern Johnson County, was the first to testify against the bill at the public hearing. A trans Iowan, they said they have faced their “fair share of discrimination” already and worried that the bill will expose trans Iowans to even more.
“Is it not the role of government to affirm rather than to deny law-abiding citizens their inalienable rights?” Fixmer-Oraiz said. “The people of Iowa deserve better.”
Among those speaking in support of the bill was Shellie Flockhart of Dallas Center, who said she is in favor as a woman and a mother, a “defender of women’s rights” and someone “who believes in the truth of God’s creation.”
“Identity does not change biology,” Flockhart said.
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 also 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.
Exposing minors to an “obscene performance” would be a crime under a bill winding through the Iowa Senate that critics fear could discourage drag shows and spur lawsuits against venues offering LGBTQ pride programming.
The legislation, Senate File 116, would make knowingly exposing anyone younger than 18 to such a performance an aggravated misdemeanor, as well as knowingly selling a ticket or admitting a minor to a venue where such a performance is held.
Similar to legislation that was introduced but did not pass last year, the bill that advanced out of subcommittee Wednesday defines “obscene performance” as one that exposes genitals, invokes sexual acts or “appeals to the prurient interest and is patently offensive.”
“I brought this bill forward because I had constituents complain to me about performances that, if not meeting the definition of obscenity in our law, at least approach that definition, and concerned about this in our communities and the exposure of minors to it,” said Sen. Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville, who was part of a group of GOP lawmakers who introduced the legislation.
Critics argue the bill would encourage frivolous lawsuits
Keenan Crow, policy and advocacy director for One Iowa, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization, raised concerns with a provision establishing a private civil cause of action allowing parents of minor children to sue to determine whether something is obscene.
The bill states “a cause of action may be brought against any person that has knowingly disseminated or exhibited obscene material to the minor or who engaged in or caused or allowed a person to knowingly engage in an obscene performance in the presence of the minor.” It sets the minimum award of damages at $10,000.
While drag shows are not explicitly labeled in the bill as obscene performances, those opposed to the legislation fear it would target drag performances.
“What we are doing is we are allowing parents to target these venues for SLAPP suits, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which are not designed to actually win the suit,” Crow said. “They are designed to make venues spend money and to reconsider hosting drag events entirely, lest they be sued on the off chance that it meets the obscenity definition, which obviously Drag Story Time does not.”
Drag Story Time events are sometimes held at libraries or other venues where drag performers read stories to children. In recent years, the events have increasingly been at the center of a larger GOP-led effort to restrict public drag events as conservative critics suggest they “sexualize” children.
Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said she worried the provision would incentivize frivolous lawsuits.
“This bill, as written, could encourage potential frivolous or bad actors to shake down local governments and private businesses, and that’s the taxpayer on the hook,” said Weiner, who opposed the bill.
Elizabeth Hall, a local trans woman, said bills targeting the LGBTQ population create “an aura of fear” among trans people that has pushed those she knows into psychiatric care.
“We fear for our communities,” Hall said. “We fear for our lives, and even if the particulars of how this bill would come into effect aren’t necessarily like that extreme, that fear still has a tangible effect on our lives and has caused so many people that I know to reach ends that I fear have continued to lead to detrimental effects.”
Supporters say the bill ensures performances shown to minors are ‘age appropriate’
Ryan Benn, a lobbyist for the conservative religious group The Family Leader, said the group supported the law because obscene materials that may be illegal to show children in movies or other material are not illegal to perform.
“I think it fixes that loophole,” Benn said.
Sen. Jeff Taylor, R-Sioux Center, said he would like to see a more clear definition of a “performance,” but overall obscenity is rarely prosecuted.
“In general, obscenity does not have constitutional protection in terms of freedom of speech,” Taylor said. “Something that’s obscene is, by definition, not protected by the First Amendment, and that’s regardless whether you’re sharing that with adults or with children. But to me, especially in the case of children, I feel like this is appropriate.”
Sen. Cherielynn Westrich, R-Ottumwa, said she supported the bill to protect children from obscenities.
“I think that what the one thing that we all in this room have agreed on is that we need to protect children from those sort of obscene or performances that are sexual in nature,” Westrich said.
Bill would repeal exemptions for public institutions
Melissa Peterson, with the Iowa State Education Association, said the group opposed the bill, especially a proposal to repeal an Iowa code section that allows minors to access appropriate material for educational purposes, at art exhibitions or in public libraries.
She said Senate File 496, the 2023 state law that requires school staff to remove books depicting sex acts, already sought to establish what content was age appropriate by existing obscenity standards.
“We worked closely together in a compromised fashion to come with what we thought would be considered age appropriate, and we would really like to see that exemption maintained for public institutions that are public spaces,” Peterson said.
Weiner also opposed repealing the exemption for public institutions.
“To repeal it is in some ways to admit that this bill really isn’t about obscenity,” Weiner said.
Florida first. Alabama follows. Legislators in Louisiana and Ohio are currently debating legislation that is similar to the Florida statute. A similar bill will be his top priority during the following session, according to Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
At least a dozen states across the country are proposing new legislation that, in some ways, will resemble Florida’s recent contentious bill, which some opponents have dubbed “Don’t Say Gay.”
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.