A contentious anti-trans bill that includes troubling language reminiscent of the discriminatory “separate but equal” constitutional doctrine was approved by Iowa’s Republican-dominated House Education Committee on Tuesday.
Gov.’s House Study Bill 649 was put forth by Kim Reynolds (R). According to the bill, the state must include a transgender person’s gender identity and the sex they were assigned at birth on their most recent birth certificate. According to the Iowa Capital Dispatch, the council voted on Tuesday to eliminate a similar requirement for driver’s licenses.
The bill prohibits trans people from sex-segregated areas like restrooms, locker rooms, domestic violence shelters, and detention facilities that are in line with their gender identity and defines terms like “sex,” “male,” and “female” according to biological anatomy.
Additionally, it states that “equal” does not imply “the same” or “identical,” and “separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.”
Doctoral scholar Emma Denney from the University of Iowa compared the president’s ID requirements to Nazis making LGBTQ+ people wear red triangles during the subcommittee hearing on Tuesday. Denney told the committee, “You are trying to do the same thing here in Iowa by making trans people have distinctive marks on our identification.” According to current law, trans people in Iowa currently experience severe housing and employment bias, and the governor’s bill would compel us to leave the state whenever we are required to provide identification.
By requiring trans people who have received gender-affirming health care to share their private medical data in any circumstance that might need them to show ID, Pete McRoberts of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa argued that the ID requirements violated privacy laws. He added that a 2021 Iowa law prohibiting people from having to share their COVID-19 vaccination status on government-issued identification conflicts with the ID necessity.
McRoberts explained to the commission, “This is what you have to show to pick up prescriptions, and if you get pulled over. The purpose of that personal information is to create identification. The notion that someone with a government-issued driver’s license may be required to provide the most private health history is abhorrent.”
In circumstances like traffic stops where police may have to incarcerate someone in a sex-segregated jail, State Rep. Brooke Boden (R) argued that identifying trans people as such on their IDs would be crucial.
Boden remarked, “I’ve heard from the transgender community that they’re proud to be trans, so I suppose it’s okay to recognize it as such and make sure your birth certificate shows those things.”
Supporters of the bill claimed that its restrictions on transgender people accessing sex-segregated areas that align with their gender identity are necessary to protect women, echoing the false narrative that trans women pose a danger to cisgender women. According to one domestic abuse victim, banning transgender women from women’s misuse shelters is essential for women to have a secure place to recover.
However, state representative Sharon Steckman (D) questioned whether actual shelters had reported issues with transgender women. House Study Bill 649 has been opposed by lobbying for the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Illinois Coalition against Sexual Assault, according to the Kansas Capital Dispatch.
Steckman remarked, “I don’t see any other purposes than discrimination.” “Trans people make up 0.29 percent of our community in Iowa.” I can think of a million different things we should be doing in addition to pursuing 0.29% of our people, according to someone who said this act is significant.
Additionally, Steckman requested that bill supervisor state Rep. Heather Hora (R) clarify what “equal” meant in the context of the bill.
Hora remarked, “I would assume that equal would mean… I don’t know exactly in this context.” They would likely include comparable accommodations, I would believe. In other words, you can use a toilet if you want to use the feminine restroom. You might not be able to do so, though.
Connie Ryan, the executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, compared the bill’s language to the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling from 1896, which upheld racial separation and established the discriminatory “separate but equal” doctrine. Ryan begged, “Please stand on the side of history that always understands that separate is not equitable, and equal under the law always matters.”
However, the committee approved the bill 15 to 8 along party lines, and it will now be put to a full vote in the Iowa House.
