Gov. Kim Reynolds’ new attempt to enforce conservative values in Iowa, introducing a bill that would define the words “sex,” “man” and “woman” in state law, has raised the hackles of civil rights and LGBTQ groups.
It sounds simple, but the bill would have wide-ranging implications, including requiring changes to the way Iowa collects public health data, issues birth certificates and driver’s licenses, and offers anti-discrimination protections.
What would HSB 649 do?
House Study Bill 649, creates a new section of the Iowa Code defining a person’s gender as their sex assigned at birth.
The bill defines a “female” as a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova and a “male” as a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.
The bill says if a person is issued a new birth certificate, driver’s license or non-operator’s ID card following a sex-change operation, the new document will list the person’s sex at birth and their sex following the operation.
It also says that when the state, cities or school districts collect data — for public health reasons, crime statistics, or to comply with anti-discrimination laws — they will identify people as only “male” or “female.”
What does HSB 649 say about discrimination and equality?
Iowa’s bill says the term “equal” does not mean “same” or “identical,” and it says that “separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.”
The legislation also says that any state law, policy or program that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex should be understood “to forbid unfair treatment of females or males in relation to similarly situated members of the opposite sex.”
It says that that the government has “objectives of protecting the health, safety and privacy” of Iowans in situations that may necessitate separate accommodations for men and women. Those contexts might include detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms and more.
Becky Tayler, executive director for Iowa Safe Schools, said the group believes the language is unconstitutional.
“Our organization would strongly suggest that the governor retake elementary civics class — ‘separate but equal’ is inherently unconstitutional,” she said. “Our organization will fight tirelessly to ensure our students are afforded equal treatment under the law.“
Pete McRoberts, policy director for the ACLU of Iowa, said the bill’s language on public facilities and equality should make everyone “do a double take,” referencing historical segregation of Black Americans and other marginalized populations.
“To see it in print is a shocker for me,” he said.
What does HSB 649 say about intersex people?
Intersex people, who are born with sex characteristics that do not fall under male or female, are not explicitly mentioned in the legislation.
The legislation does say that a person “born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of disorder or difference of sex development shall be provided the legal protections and accommodations afforded under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.”
Why has Kim Reynolds proposed HSB 649?
Reynolds has not spoken about the bill publicly, but she provided a statement to the Des Moines Register saying, “Women and men are not identical; they possess unique biological differences. That’s not controversial, it’s common sense.”
In the statement, she said she wants to protect “women’s spaces and rights.”
“Just like we did with girls’ sports, this bill protects women’s spaces and rights afforded to us by Iowa law and the constitution,” she said. “It’s unfortunate that defining a woman in code has become necessary to protect spaces where women’s health, safety, and privacy are being threatened like domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers. The bill allows the law to recognize biological differences while forbidding unfair discrimination.”
Why do LGBTQ rights activists like One Iowa, ACLU oppose HSB 649?
“We refer to it as the LGBTQ erasure act,” said Keenan Crow, director of policy and advocacy for One Iowa.
In a statement, Iowa Safe Schools said the bill could be interpreted “as segregating transgender Iowans in facilities owned, operated, or funded by state government.”
“This bill is an affront to everything we’re about as Iowans,” Tayler, of Iowa Safe Schools, said in the statement. “Gov. Reynolds has made it crystal clear that transgender Iowans are not welcome in their own state.
Reynolds’ proposal could require transgender Iowans to have unique birth certificates and driver’s licenses — which advocates said would mean disclosing personal medical information while purchasing alcohol or other unrelated activities that require a form of ID.
McRoberts, of the ACLU, called the language an “astonishing violation” of privacy.
“Can you imagine if Gov. Reynolds had wanted you to put your COVID vaccination status on your license? Why would this medical information be any different?” McRoberts said.
“We’re not talking slippery slope here,” he added. “The slope is in the rearview mirror. The damage is done.”
The legislation’s definition of “mother” (“a parent who is female”) and “father” (“a parent who is male”) could also complicate circumstances for children with same-sex parents, Crow said.
Do other states have similar laws?
Similar legislation has been passed in several states, including Montana, Kansas and Tennessee.
Montana’s law defining “sex” in state code has been challenged in court by the ACLU, with plaintiffs arguing that it denies them legal protections and recognition.
What have Iowa’s GOP legislative leaders said about HSB 649?
On a Friday taping of Iowa Press, Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver said Republican legislators were just starting to take a look at the proposal.
“But it’s something that I know a lot of our people would be interested in,” he said. “But it’s too early right now to predict on what will happen with that.”
He also spoke about the Legislature’s broader focus on transgender Iowans.
“Well, in some regards the bills address issues where the rights of the transgendered are conflicting with the rights of non-transgendered athletes or athletes,” he said. “For example, you have girls that are playing girls sports and all of a sudden there is a transgendered girl playing those sports. That is a conflict of rights. So that’s kind of what you’re dealing with, with this situation. So, we’ll see where it goes. But definitely it will be something our people will be interested in.”
Brianne Pfannenstiel is the chief politics reporter for the Register. Reach her at [email protected] or 515-284-8244. Follow her on Twitter at @brianneDMR.
