Hundreds protest as Legislature votes to remove gender identity from Iowa Civil Rights Act

The Iowa House and Senate, working simultaneously Thursday, passed a bill removing gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act. It is the first bill of the 2025 legislative session to reach Gov. Kim Reynolds’ desk.

The Senate voted 33-15 and the House 60-36 in favor of Senate File 418, a bill that would amend parts of Iowa Code providing protections against discrimination in areas like employment, housing, public accommodations and education, to no longer include “gender identity” from these civil rights sections.

The bill would also change language defining “sex” and “gender” in Iowa law and would remove the ability for a transgender person to change the sex designated on their birth certificate after receiving gender-affirming surgery or other related treatment from a licensed medical provider.

Hundreds of Iowans filled the rotunda of the Iowa State Capitol, chanting and holding signs that called for lawmakers to reject the measure. Some opponents to the legislation were removed from chamber galleries for disruptive actions.

Sen. Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig, said gender identity protections added in 2007 to the Iowa Civil Rights Act conflict with laws passed by Republican lawmakers in recent years on issues like transgender women competing in women’s sports and the ability of transgender people to use school bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, and repealing these civil rights protections was a necessary step to ensure such laws can survive court challenges.

“When we look across the country, what do we see? Twenty-eight states do not have this special recognition in law,” Schultz said. “Among the states, Iowa finds itself in a peculiar spot. We are the only state to have the words ‘gender identity’ in code alongside legal protections for women’s bathrooms, sports and for children from mutilation and attempts to protect taxpayers. This cannot stand.”

House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said Iowa would also be in a unique position in being the first state in the nation to strip a group of people of their protected class status in a state civil rights code.

“We’ve never done it before – no one in the country has ever done this before,” Konfrst said. “We would be the first state in the country to take away rights from a protected class. So we don’t know what the impact will be. So don’t tell us we’re overreacting.”

Currently, there are 23 states, including Iowa, with state protections against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Senate Minority Leader Janice Weiner said Iowa lawmakers were elected to pass laws for Iowa, and that comparisons should not be made on the basis of other states’ civil rights code. Weiner said this legislation will not stop legal challenges to other Iowa laws related to transgender people.

“You have already passed the bills to do what you want,” Weiner said. “But this won’t stop the lawsuits. It will, in fact, create more causes of action. You’ll hear that there’s no slippery slope, it’s a figment of our imagination. You may think that I have a wild imagination, Mr. President, but what I actually have is a logical, legally trained mind. But you’re right on one count, there will be no slippery slope, because we’ll already be there right at the bottom of the slope. Because including gender in the Civil Rights Code as a right, freely given in 2007 (versus) removing it now are two very different votes.”

Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, D-Hiawatha, the first transgender Iowan elected to the Legislature, shared her story of facing discrimination in her business career and in housing after coming out as transgender.

“This bill revokes protections to our jobs, our homes and our ability to access credit,” Wichtendahl said. “In other words, it deprives us of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I bring this up because 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. The sum total of every anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ bill is to make our existence illegal, to force us back into the closet. If we want jobs or a place to live, we have to go back, is what they’re telling us. Because the authors of these bills wish us every harm. … It is far past time these anti-trans bills be placed into the dustbin of history.”

Democrats introduced amendments in both chambers that would change sections of the bill specifically removing “gender identity” from protections related to access to credit, housing and employment. All of the amendments were voted down.

Schultz called for the Senate to resist these amendments because it would create conflicts within Iowa Code. Sen. Zach Wahls, D-Coralville, asked Schultz to clarify if he supported a person being discriminated against in areas like credit because they are transgender.

“I resist anybody, discriminating against anybody, insulting anybody, doing anything wrong against anybody,” Schultz said. “But this bill addresses protecting women and children and taxpayers.”

Schultz did not respond “yes” or “no” when asked if he approved of a person being denied access to credit based on their gender identity.

“If the senator from Crawford believes that it is morally correct to deny transgender Iowans access to credit because they are or are perceived to be transgender, he should have the courage of his convictions to say that on the floor of the state Senate,” Wahls said. “The refusal to actually answer the question, to actually engage in debate and conversation on this topic, is beneath the dignity of this chamber.”

An amendment introduced by 10 House Republicans removing sections of the bill repealing bans on gender identity discrimination for housing and credit was withdrawn.

Rep. Sean Bagniewski, D-Des Moines, and other Democrats speaking on the House floor urged his colleagues, especially those in the majority party, to reject the “dangerous and unconstitutional bill.”

“We have partisan support for this bill, but we also have bipartisan opposition to it,” Bagniewski said. “And for the folks from both parties who are considering voting against us today, you are seen. Iowans are proud of you. I’m proud of you. I’m proud to be your colleague.”

Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, said people who used the state’s motto, “our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain” to criticize the measure should ask whether they believed women are entitled to these rights and liberties as well.

“It is basic to me, in my opinion, that the party that championed women’s rights for decades now turns a blind eye to the fact that they are being erased,” he said. “Discrimination in any form is unacceptable, but yet, apparently, it is acceptable against women in this context. It’s been described as a hateful bill. Why don’t women matter?”

Konfrst decried attempts to label the bill as a “women’s rights” measure.

“I’ve heard a lot about how this bill will protect women,” Konfrst said. “With all due respect, as someone who has fought for women’s rights my entire life, I don’t need your protection. I don’t need you to protect me. I need you to protect all Iowans, because that is what we are here to do.”

Iowans speak out at public hearing

The House Judiciary Committee heard from Iowans about the measure in a public hearing Thursday morning. A large crowd gathered outside and many of the speakers at the hearing said the measure will give legal coverage for more discrimination, harassment of transgender people in the state.Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, D-Hiawatha, the first transgender Iowan elected to the Legislature, shared her story of facing discrimination in her business career and in housing after coming out as transgender.

“This bill revokes protections to our jobs, our homes and our ability to access credit,” Wichtendahl said. “In other words, it deprives us of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I bring this up because 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. The sum total of every anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ bill is to make our existence illegal, to force us back into the closet. If we want jobs or a place to live, we have to go back, is what they’re telling us. Because the authors of these bills wish us every harm. … It is far past time these anti-trans bills be placed into the dustbin of history.”

Democrats introduced amendments in both chambers that would change sections of the bill specifically removing “gender identity” from protections related to access to credit, housing and employment. All of the amendments were voted down.

Schultz called for the Senate to resist these amendments because it would create conflicts within Iowa Code. Sen. Zach Wahls, D-Coralville, asked Schultz to clarify if he supported a person being discriminated against in areas like credit because they are transgender.

“I resist anybody, discriminating against anybody, insulting anybody, doing anything wrong against anybody,” Schultz said. “But this bill addresses protecting women and children and taxpayers.”

Schultz did not respond “yes” or “no” when asked if he approved of a person being denied access to credit based on their gender identity.

“If the senator from Crawford believes that it is morally correct to deny transgender Iowans access to credit because they are or are perceived to be transgender, he should have the courage of his convictions to say that on the floor of the state Senate,” Wahls said. “The refusal to actually answer the question, to actually engage in debate and conversation on this topic, is beneath the dignity of this chamber.”

An amendment introduced by 10 House Republicans removing sections of the bill repealing bans on gender identity discrimination for housing and credit was withdrawn.

Rep. Sean Bagniewski, D-Des Moines, and other Democrats speaking on the House floor urged his colleagues, especially those in the majority party, to reject the “dangerous and unconstitutional bill.”

“We have partisan support for this bill, but we also have bipartisan opposition to it,” Bagniewski said. “And for the folks from both parties who are considering voting against us today, you are seen. Iowans are proud of you. I’m proud of you. I’m proud to be your colleague.”

Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, said people who used the state’s motto, “our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain” to criticize the measure should ask whether they believed women are entitled to these rights and liberties as well.

“It is basic to me, in my opinion, that the party that championed women’s rights for decades now turns a blind eye to the fact that they are being erased,” he said. “Discrimination in any form is unacceptable, but yet, apparently, it is acceptable against women in this context. It’s been described as a hateful bill. Why don’t women matter?”

Konfrst decried attempts to label the bill as a “women’s rights” measure.

“I’ve heard a lot about how this bill will protect women,” Konfrst said. “With all due respect, as someone who has fought for women’s rights my entire life, I don’t need your protection. I don’t need you to protect me. I need you to protect all Iowans, because that is what we are here to do.”

Iowans speak out at public hearing

The House Judiciary Committee heard from Iowans about the measure in a public hearing Thursday morning. A large crowd gathered outside and many of the speakers at the hearing said the measure will give legal coverage for more discrimination, harassment of transgender people in the state.

Supporters of the bill cited the need to protect from court challenges state laws like bathroom bills and restrictions on participation of transgender athletes.

Danny Carroll with the Family Leader, said the measure was necessary because of the “unintended consequences” caused by the addition of gender identity to the civil rights code in 2007, highlighting cases like court decisions on overriding a state law prohibiting Medicaid coverage for gender-confirmation surgery or allowing transgender women to be allowed in women’s shelters or correctional facilities.

“They probably did not anticipate the legal complaints that would be filed against businesses because they believe sex is limited to a man and a woman and they act accordingly,” Carroll said. “And finally, anticipating the level of legal complaints filed against an employer because they want to conduct their business according to the traditional understanding of male or female. There’s still many rights that are retained, all the rights and freedoms that we’ve already had.”

Opponents of the bill said the removal of these civil rights protections would lead to real discrimination against transgender Iowans.

Devin Kelly, a civil rights attorney, shared a story about representing a transgender man in a rural community who faced employment discrimination because he was transgender. The client, who Kelly referred to as Steven, applied for a vacant position, and after checking on his application, was called by the incorrect name and told the position was filled. When he had friends call back to ask about the position, they were told the position was still open.

“This is the type of thing that gender identity in the Civil Rights Court protects,” Kelly said. “It protects people working hard across the state, in rural communities — some of you might not even know — but are just trying to make a life for themselves and their families and serve their communities.”

Ray Simmons of Red Oak, pastor of the Ascension Reformed Church, said Iowa’s current civil rights code “does not fit” Iowa.

“Based on the recent election, Iowa and (those) like in my county would want you to pass this bill, because our current code does not fit the election mandate,” Simmons said. “… I would recommend listening to your constituents. Secondly … our current code does not fit with the rest of the code. God would have us to make codes that are consistent and protecting children, upholding religious freedom.”

He and several other supporters of the bill also said that their opposition to gender identity being protected under Iowa Code was rooted in their religious beliefs that God made two sexes. But several religious leaders spoke against the measure, saying that removing protections from a group of people who already face significant hardships and hate is not in line with their religious beliefs.

Rt. Rev. Betsey Monnot, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Iowa, said Jesus taught to treat others how you would want to be treated, saying this means “if you would not want the government to remove your civil rights, do not remove the civil rights of others.”

“Transgender Iowans are members of my congregations and members of communities across the state of Iowa,” Monnot said. “They are your neighbors and my neighbors. Jesus calls us to love our neighbors as ourselves. It is unthinkable to remove civil rights and legal protections from people that we love.”

What comes next?

Reynolds did not respond to requests for comment on whether she plans to sign the legislation. However, there were multiple discussions at the Statehouse signaling that Reynolds supported the move to remove gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act. One Iowa, an LGBTQ advocacy organization, stated in a news release from late January that “multiple independent sources” confirmed the governor was considering introducing such legislation.

If the measure is signed into law, it will likely face legal challenges. In discussions on this bill and a similar 2024 measure, Pete McRoberts with the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa said U.S. Supreme Court precedent has found that when a legislature voluntarily grants protected status to a group when it is not obligated to, removing those protections violates the Equal Protections Clause under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

Despite any court decisions on the constitutionality of a move to repeal gender identity protections from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, there are also some protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity in federal court precedent. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled protections against sex discrimination also applied to discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

But Rep. Heather Matson, D-Ankeny, said Iowa Civil Rights Act protections were still necessary because there is not a guarantee that this Supreme Court decision will stand.

“The makeup of the court has changed in the last five years, and without gender identity specifically in the Civil Rights Code, a decision can be overturned,” Matson said. “And this court hasn’t exactly followed precedent.”

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com.