***The Iowa Standard is an independent media voice. We rely on the financial support of our readers to exist. Please consider a one-time sign of support or becoming a monthly supporter at $5, $10/month - whatever you think we're worth! If you’ve ever used the phrase “Fake News” — now YOU can actually DO something about it! You can also support us on PayPal at [email protected] or Venmo at Iowa-Standard-2018 or through the mail at:
PO Box 112
Sioux Center, IA 51250
Statement from Republican State Rep. Brian Lohse on House Study Bill 242, which would strip “gender identity” out of the Iowa Civil Rights code and instead restore civil rights protections for individuals based on sex. The bill also defines words like “sex,” “gender,” “male, “female,” “man,” “woman,” etc. Here is his statement:
HSB242. Most of you have probably heard about this bill by now. As of right now, it is scheduled to go to a Judiciary Committee vote on Monday, then to the House floor for a vote on Thursday. The bill was filed late in the day Thursday, so that procedurally, the planned schedule next week could happen.
After reading and digesting the bill in its entirety, there are a number of reasons I will be unable to support HSB242:
1. Unintended Consequences: As written, the bill would create huge changes other areas of the civils rights code. These changes are immensely negative and do nothing to advance the stated goals of the bill.
2. Equal Protection: As written, the bill, especially in the areas of the bill affecting birth certificates, appears to create significant equal protection issues.
3. Civil Rights: There is a huge discussion that needs to be had when it comes bathrooms, sports, jails, and other areas where segregation by sex and gender has been historically understood. That discussion can and should be had with the transgender community. I am confident that a reasoned and appropriate approach that is respectful of the concerns of all sides could be reached.
However, in 2007, gender identity was placed in the civil rights code affording statutory rights to a group of Iowans, a group of Americans, that protected them from discrimination in the areas of wages, employment, housing, credit, etc.
It has been stated that in these areas, federal law is available to provide the same protections. If that is correct, then why even bother removing it from Iowa code? However, this is not accurate.
Employment discrimination (which may or may not include wage discrimination) is afforded only through caselaw. In housing, discrimination is prohibited only through an administrative rule of the federal Fair Housing Act and is a rule that is not likely to continue on the books.
I cannot, in good conscience, vote to take away existing statutory rights from Iowans currently holding them, especially when it means the prospect of being denied basic human needs.
