Iowa House Bill HF190

Iowa 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/23
• Refer: 2/2/23

Caption

A bill for an act relating to gender under the Iowa civil rights Act.

Impact

If enacted, this bill would significantly alter existing civil rights protections under Iowa law. By removing gender identity from the list of protected classes, the bill has the potential to impact individuals who identify as transgender or non-binary, as they might lose legal recourse against discrimination based on their gender identity. The bill's proponents argue that it establishes a clear and uniform definition of sex, which could reduce confusion in enforcement and interpretation of civil rights laws. However, opponents contend that this undermines inclusivity and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, effectively sanctioning discrimination against them.

Summary

House File 190 seeks to amend the Iowa civil rights Act by redefining the parameters surrounding the concept of gender within the context of civil rights protections. The bill aims to remove 'gender identity' as a protected class and to redefine 'sex' strictly as a person's biological sex, which is defined based on the information recorded on a birth certificate. This legislative change is aligned with similar movements in other jurisdictions attempting to clarify the definitions related to sex and gender in terms of legal protections and rights, particularly in the realms of housing, employment, and education.

Contention

There is notable contention surrounding House File 190, particularly regarding its implications for LGBTQ+ rights. Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights and some civil rights organizations have raised concerns that the bill could encourage discrimination in various areas such as employment, housing, and access to services, significantly impacting the quality of life for many individuals. On the legislative floor, discussions have also revealed a divide in public opinion on whether the redefinition simplifies or complicates civil rights law enforcement. Proponents emphasize the need for clarity and consistency, while opponents view it as regressive and harmful to vulnerable communities.