**FILE** Shown in this Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2017, file photo is State Rep. Sharon Steckman, D-Mason City, at the Statehouse in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Americans For Prosperity looking for a passionate advocate for liberty to join our team as a Grassroots Engagement Director. You will identify, recruit, and lead volunteers in voter-contact activity as our activist base holds our elected officials accountable.
There are multiple opportunities across Iowa with one of the largest and established grassroots efforts in the nation. For these permanent field staff positions we offer an industry leading benefits package, flexible work schedule, and the opportunity to make meaningful public policy change.
We Have Grassroots Engagement Director Openings In:
• Iowa – Cedar Rapids
• Iowa – Des Moines
Please feel free to apply today or contact a recruiter to discuss more options by booking a call with a recruiter here (Be sure to mention you heard about this opportunity through the Iowa Standard).
Looking for something different? Check out other opportunities at AFP here.
***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 newsdesk@theiowastandard.com or Venmo at Iowa-Standard-2018 or through the mail at:
PO Box 112
Sioux Center, IA 51250
Iowans can agree that every child deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
This week, House Majority Party Education committee members approved a bill (HF 2309) that discriminates against and prevents transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports in middle and high school.
Local schools across the state, in partnership with high school athletic associations, are already creating policies that protect transgender youth and ensure a level playing field for all students. Those guidelines are working; there is no evidence of any problems in our state. Banning transgender youth from participating in sports undermines all of these efforts.
The girls affected by this would be prevented from learning the challenges and teamwork by being denied the opportunity to be involved in team activities. ALL children deserve the same chances to learn those life lessons and to build a sense of belonging with their peers.
This bill could also impact Iowa’s Title 9 Federal Funds and it should also be noted that a similar bill passed in South Dakota was struck down in federal court. This bill is discriminatory, singles out and marginalizes a small group of children.
With all Democrats voting no, the bill passed on a partisan basis and will advance to a full House vote.
I did not come to the Statehouse to pass discriminatory laws against Iowa children.
Sharon Steckman makes the statement referring to HF 2309 the it “discriminates against and prevents transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports in middle and high school.” Of course she tries to paint the issue as discrimination involving students of the same sex. One type of girl or another. But the students she refers to are not of the same sex. There are biologic female students with certain genetic attributes and male students who have certain genetic attributes. Bifurcating and restricting competition based on sex has never been treated as unreasonable discrimination indeed it is appropriate for a host of practical, cultural and fairness reasons all of which serve to protect actual girls and girl sports.
By Sharon Steckmans standards if the male students she refers to are “girls” then allowing them to compete for records or to augment female student team sports discriminates against females students who cannot afford the cost or desire to endure the physical and mental health risk of augmentation to compete with those so called girls who come with musculature and lung capacity and bone density not natural to their sex. And if one student gets to use drugs or hormonal “therapies” to satisfy a desire to compete in girls athletics (which do not eliminate basic sex linked advantages), why cannot a girl use drugs or hormonal therapies to enhance their attributes in order to compete in girls athletics and even the playing field with the biological male they will compete against?
Sharon Steckman says she “did not come to the Statehouse to pass discriminatory laws against Iowa children.” Then is she there to sustain them? Has she introduced a bill to ban discrimination based on age within school athletics, or is a presumption about physicality linked to age appropriate? Most reasonable people would think such is appropriate. That is why a presumption regarding sex linked characteristics indeed DNA is appropriate. The bigger question is why does Sharon Steckman want to discriminate against indeed punish unmodified girls in the realm of scholarships and other awards associated with school athletics?
Sharon Steckman makes the statement referring to HF 2309 the it “discriminates against and prevents transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports in middle and high school.” Of course she tries to paint the issue as discrimination involving students of the same sex. One type of girl or another. But the students she refers to are not of the same sex. There are biologic female students with certain genetic attributes and male students who have certain genetic attributes. Bifurcating and restricting competition based on sex has never been treated as unreasonable discrimination indeed it is appropriate for a host of practical, cultural and fairness reasons all of which serve to protect actual girls and girl sports.
By Sharon Steckmans standards if the male students she refers to are “girls” then allowing them to compete for records or to augment female student team sports discriminates against females students who cannot afford the cost or desire to endure the physical and mental health risk of augmentation to compete with those so called girls who come with musculature and lung capacity and bone density not natural to their sex. And if one student gets to use drugs or hormonal “therapies” to satisfy a desire to compete in girls athletics (which do not eliminate basic sex linked advantages), why cannot a girl use drugs or hormonal therapies to enhance their attributes in order to compete in girls athletics and even the playing field with the biological male they will compete against?
Sharon Steckman says she “did not come to the Statehouse to pass discriminatory laws against Iowa children.” Then is she there to sustain them? Has she introduced a bill to ban discrimination based on age within school athletics, or is a presumption about physicality linked to age appropriate? Most reasonable people would think such is appropriate. That is why a presumption regarding sex linked characteristics indeed DNA is appropriate. The bigger question is why does Sharon Steckman want to discriminate against indeed punish unmodified girls in the realm of scholarships and other awards associated with school athletics?