Iowa MPs voted to remove gender protection from the State Civil Rights Act on Thursday, despite the huge protests of opponents who say it could expose transgender people to discrimination in numerous areas of life.
The measure went through the legislative proceedings after it was first introduced last week. The state Senate first approved the bill on Thursday, followed by a house less than an hour later.
Hundreds 2slgbtq+ advocates on Thursday are immersed in the Rotund Capitol waving the signs of reading “trans rights human rights” and singing slogan, including “No hatred in our country!”
There was a difficult police presence, with state soldiers stationed around Rotunda. The opposition to the proposal of the law was enormous, with the 2slgbtq+ people and their allies appeared in the defense of human rights of transgender and non-bilateral people. Of the 167 people who applied for a testimony at the 90-minute public hearing before the Home Committee, all except 24 were opposed by the law of the law.
Protesters who watched the vote from the House Gallery stunned loudly and shouted “Shame!” as the Chamber delayed. Many were reprimanded by the state ambassador of Iowa Steven Holta, who ruled the account and delivered a fierce defense before he passed.
The proposal of the law would eliminate gender identity as a protected class from the State Civil Rights Act and explicitly defined female and male, as well as gender, which would now be considered synonymous with gender and “is not considered a synonym or abbreviated expression for gender identity, experienced gender, expression or gender or gender role.”
The measure would be the first legislative action of removing the protection of non -crime based on gender identity, said Logan Casey, Director of Policy Research on the Project Progress of Movement, 2SLGBTQ+ Think Think Tank.
Changes supporters say that the current law has coded the idea that people can move on to another gender, which they believe is incorrect, and transgender women have allowed access to spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams they believe they should be reserved for people who have been assigned to a female by birth.
“The legislative body of Iowa for the future of our children and our culture has a great interest and a solemn responsibility to advocate for an unchanging truth,” Holt said.
2Slgbtq+ advocates of people and human rights say that there is no justification for removing the protection of civil rights from trans and non-binial people.
“If this bill passes, many basic life supplies Iowans take for granted, Transger Iowans will become much harder to approach,” MAZ Mowitz, 2SLGBTQ+ advocacy of the One Io Iowa Action group, said last month.
“The renters will legally be able to deny them the possibility of renting an apartment, the banks will be able to deny them a car loan, and hotels will be able to distract them for any other reason than because they are transgender. This account gives those who want to discriminate against the ability to set their thumbs on American dream scales.”
State Reverend Aime Wichtendahl was the last Democrat to speak against the bill on Thursday, becoming emotional as she offered her personal story as a transgender woman, saying: “I have overwhelmed me to save my life.”
“The purpose of this proposal of the law and the purpose of each law against transport is to further delete us from public life and stigmatize our existence,” said Wichtendahl. “The sum of every anti-trans and anti-lgbtq law is to make our existence illegal.”
‘Protection should be … reinforced rather than removed’
The legislation now goes to the Republican Government Kim Reynolds, who supported the efforts to limit the protection of gender identity. Reynolds spokeswoman refused to comment on whether to sign an account.
Actions of Iowa legislators were created on the same day when the Georgia House gave up the removal of gender protection from the State Hate Crime Act, which was adopted in 2020 after The death of Ahmaud Arbery.
Current Civic Rights Law in Iowa protects against discrimination based on race, color, belief, gender identity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin or disability status.
Sexual orientation and gender identity were not originally involved in the 1965 Civil Rights State Law. They were added to the legislation under the control of the Democratic State in 2007, also with the support of a dozen Republicans in two chambers.
Iowa Republicans say their changes intended to strengthen the prohibition of the state to participate in sports and access to the public bathroom for transgender students, which Reynolds signed into the law.
These increasing attacks on trances should be a reason to strengthen protection, not removal, Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO Glaad, said on Wednesday.
“At a time when transgender people are under unprecedented attack, protection should be carried out and strengthened, not removed to strengthen discrimination,” Ellis said in statement.
“The Laws on Non -Discrimination are crucial to the protection of our most vulnerable and marginalized communities and ensuring that no one is treated differently because of who they are. This is a call to wake up in a red warning that if they can do so, all the protection of civil rights could be in danger,” Ellis said.
About half of the US states include gender identity in its civil rights law to protect itself from discrimination in residential and public places, such as stores or restaurants, according to a project to progress the movement. Some additional states explicitly do not protect against such discrimination, but this is involved in legal interpretations of the statute.
The Iowa Supreme Court dismissed the argument that gender -based discrimination involves discrimination based on gender identity.
Several legislative bodies under the guidance of Republicans are also pushed by more laws this year, creating legal definitions of male and women on the basis of reproductive organs at birth after the executive order of US President Donald Trump.
Trump, in the command of executive orders that aim of transitional and non-bicycle people, also signed orders that laid the foundations for banning transgender people from military service and holding transgender girls and women from girls and women’s sports competitions, among other things. Most politics are challenged in court.
