Gender rights heated topic at forum

Editor’s note: This is part two of two of the March 3 Legislative Forum held by Sen. Amy Sinclair (R-Allerton), Rep. Sam Wengryn (R-Pleasanton) and Rep. Ray “Bubba” Sorensen (R-Greenfield) at Revelton Distillery.

While the first half of last week’s legislative forum focused mainly on property taxes, the second half delved into an at times tense argument over transgender rights in Iowa, sparking strong emotions from the legislators and those in attendance.

The conversation began with a constituent expressing their concern about the recent bill signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds. The bill, Senate File 418, was signed on Feb. 28 and removed gender identity as a protected class from Iowa’s Civil Rights Act. Listed classes are protected against discrimination in areas of employment, education, housing and other public accommodations.

The legislation also removes a transgender person’s right to change their sex designated at birth after receiving gender-affirming medical treatment, and changes language in Iowa law in how gender identity material may be referred to in material for K-6 grade students.

This bill makes Iowa the first state in the nation to remove civil rights protections from a group of individuals that were previously designated with a protected status in code.

Reynolds released a statement after signing the bill in which she said it would safeguard the rights of women and girls.

“It is common sense to acknowledge the obvious biological differences between men and women. In fact, it is necessary to secure genuine equal protection for women and girls. It is why we have men and women’s bathrooms, but not men and women’s conference rooms; girls’ and boys’ sports, but not girls’ math and boys’ math; separate men’s and women’s prisons, but not different laws for men and women. It is about the biological differences, and that is all,” Reynolds’ statement said.

The statement went on to say that the previous law “forced Iowa taxpayers to pay for gender reassignment surgeries.” Reynolds did state that all Iowans deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, as all are children of God and no law can change that.

“What this bill does accomplish is to strengthen protections for women and girls, and I believe that is the right thing to do,” the statement read.

The constituent, however, was concerned about a restriction of civil rights for transgender persons.

“I’ve been studying and teaching about civil rights and the constitution for an awful long time and I know this is a slippery slope,” the constituent said. “I would just like to hear about why this was such an important issue. Why did we need to take civil rights away from people that endanger them?”

Sorensen took the lead on the discussion, saying legislation was passed that Iowans had been  asking for time and again.

“We passed not allowing public dollars to be gery. We passed keeping men out of women’s bathrooms, we passed keeping men out of women’s sports. We passed all these bills, all with the thinking that we didn’t need to touch gender identity in the Civil Rights code. Thinking this is going to be enough, we’re setting up our state policy here,” Sorensen said.

Then, according to Sorensen, the lawsuits started coming in, regarding things that were protected by the gender identity part of the code.

“...bringing it out of the civil rights code doesn’t strip away all of their rights. They have the same rights as me. And every person should be respected,” Sorensen said. “I have no problem with them, but I do have a problem with a fully intact man being in my daughter’s restroom or shower or locker room facilities. I see that as a loophole.”

Sorensen said it wasn’t necessarily that transgender individuals are the bad actors, but that the “gaping” gender identity loophole allowed for people to get away with nefarious acts. When asked what the number was of nefarious people using the wrong restroom and threatening women, Sorensen said there were several cases, noting one of a female DMACC culinary student who had entered the women’s locker room and stumbled upon a transgender woman showering; the transgender woman had not undergone gender-affirming surgery. Upon talking to the administration at DMACC, the student ended up dropping out after being told they were the problem.

Calling the example anecdotal evidence, the constituent said he was concerned with transgender women now having to use the men’s restroom, noting that violence among the transgender population is higher than the cisgender population, and asking about protections for them.

A study published by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law which looked at 2022 and 2023 data stated that transgender persons “experienced victimization at a rate of 93.7 per 1,000, compared with 21.1 per 1,000 among non-LGBT persons.”

Sorensen stated that the largest population of transgender individuals are found in three states without gender identity protections in their state codes, and gender-friendly former-president Joe Biden didn’t deem it necessary to put in federal code.

“There’s no need for it…we’re all protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They have the same rights as me,” Sorensen said.

Sinclair contributed that no rights had been removed for transgender persons in regards to housing, employment, freedom of speech, religion or assembly.

“Every right that you or I have, every single transgender person also has,” Sinclair said.

She went on to say that law has simply been aligned with what Iowans want, which is to not use tax dollars to pay for cross-sex hormones or gender transition surgeries, as well as to protect girls and women in sports and in private bathroom and locker room facilities.

“It’s not nothing, those are the facts,” Sinclair said.

The constituent expressed his concern about the slippery slope the law could create, asking what class of people could be affected next.

“Again, we are all protected under the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We all have rights, we all deserve to be respected,” Sorensen replied. “I don’t care if you identify as a different gender, a unicorn, a puppy - God bless you, this is the United States of America.”

Sorensen’s remark drew outcries from the crowd.

“Not funny - come on, you can do better than that,” one man said.

“Nobody said it was funny,” Sorensen retorted.

“You’re making fun of these people.”

“Not one bit,” Sorensen replied.

Another woman called out Sorensen for dehumanizing people.

“This is a nonissue that you have decided to waste time on,” she said, before Rob Taylor said that those who cannot have a civil conversation without yelling would need to leave.

“The lawsuit says it’s an issue….I’m sorry, we’re going to agree to disagree here, because the reality of it is, it’s not a nonissue when the people who elected me to do a job and elected 149 people to do a job said please protect our girls [and women] and please protect our tax dollars, they expect us to do it and this was the only way we were able to do it. There is no legal protection that has been taken from them,” Sinclair said to end the discussion with stating that the protection as mentioned laws now protected in Iowa’s legal code. “Next question, please.”

Water and healthcare concerns

A comment was made about the need for support at the state level in making sure that Osceola is able to get water and removing those hurdles as they arise. Sinclair said that she had spoken with the Iowa DNR after hearing comments that they were standing in the way and will continue to step in at a state level as needed. However, she said her understanding was that a lot of current issues revolve around the EPA, which is federal.

“The problems are no longer, in my opinion, at the state level,” Sinclair said. She said she would support the project however she could.

On the topic of healthcare were two - PBMs and cancer rates.

PBMs, or “Pharmacy Benefit Managers,” are third party companies that work as intermediaries between pharmaceutical manufacturers and insurance providers.

A representative of Osceola and Creston HyVees questioned where legislation is at regarding PBMs, as they can be detrimental to rural pharmacies and communities.

Sinclair said there was a reform bill that was eligible for debate in the Senate, and Sorensen said a bill had passed out of committee in the House.

“End of day this is a federal issue that states are trying to piecemeal solve. The feds should take action over this…this is classic interstate commerce type of issue that states are trying to nibble around the edges because it is becoming an access to care issue in rural areas,” Sinclair said.

When asked what the legislation is doing about the high rates of cancer in the state, Sinclair said that Reynolds had included cancer research in her budget; legislators have not yet received the budget nor have they gotten into the budget process. A part of the governor’s budget will be to provide funding for cancer research with the University of Iowa.

Sorensen reminded that Iowa has high levels of radon gas in the soil, and spoke of bills that are advancing for cancer screening for first responders, pediatric cancer research and cost sharing requirements for breast examinations.

It was pointed out by another Taylor, whose wife is a physician, that the increase in technology and detection of pre-cancer and early cancer will also skew the cancer number rates.

Other topics discussed were House File 564, which would allow governmental entities to reject the lowest bidder on projects based on different criteria, such as the bidder’s experience, number of employees and ability to finance the cost of the public improvement.

“Generally, municipalities take the lowest bid because it protects money, but sometimes you don’t get the best quality of work, or it comes up later on and has to be covered,” Wengryn said.

A question about bills regarding the direct sale of electronic vehicles to consumers versus going through a dealership was asked as far as what the outlook looks like. Sorensen said a bill had made it through the judiciary branch and was on the calendar for discussion, but none of the three legislators were on a committee that deals with that topic. They did speak to consumer protection, and making sure that was taken care of when it comes to sales of EVs.

Funnel week ends

March 7 marked the end of the first funnel week of the Iowa Legislation. Of the bills discussed at the forum, the following bills related to the topics made it through the first funnel week, as reported by Iowa Capital Dispatch:

PBMs: SF383 and HF5852 would require PBMs reimburse pharmacies for drug costs at the the national or Iowa average acquisition cost, in addition to restricting PBMs’ ability to limit which pharmacies or pharmacists fill a person’s prescription, if the provider has agreed to participate in the individual’s health benefit plan, practices that pharmacists told lawmakers would help rural pharmacies stay in business.

Beneficial use water permits: HF480 would redefine “beneficial use” to require a case-by-case determination of water use application, rather than a categorical approach. Lawmakers said the bill, which advanced from its house committee, would help conserve Iowa’s water resources.

A list of bills that made it through and didn’t can be found online at Iowa Capital Dispatch: https://shorturl.at/ZEbc7.