116 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
Iowa Senate Republicans advance bill banning gender identity, sexual orientation instruction in high schools
Proposal would expand existing K-6 restriction now challenged in federal court
Jan. 21, 2026 4:19 pm, Updated: Jan. 22, 2026 7:51 am
The Gazette offers audio versions of articles using Instaread. Some words may be mispronounced.
DES MOINES — Iowa middle and high school students would no longer be allowed classroom instruction or school-sponsored programming that references sexual orientation or what state law defines as “gender theory” under legislation advanced Wednesday by Senate Republicans — extending a contentious K-6 prohibition now being challenged in federal court.
A Senate education subcommittee agreed 2-1 to advance the bill, sending it to the full committee for further consideration. Republican Sens. Jesse Green, of Boone, and Sandy Salmon, of Janesville, agreed to move the measure forward, while Democratic Sen. Molly Donahue, of Marion, opposed it.
The proposal would expand Iowa’s existing ban on instruction related to sexual orientation and gender identity — currently limited to kindergarten through sixth grade — to include grades seven through 12. A companion bill has been introduced in the Iowa House by Rep. Helena Hayes, a Republican from New Sharon.
Senate File 2003 would prohibit school districts, charter schools and innovation zone schools from providing “any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction” relating to sexual orientation or “gender theory” for any grade level, including middle and high school.
Under Iowa law, “gender theory” is defined as the idea that a person’s gender identity can differ from their biological sex as male or female, including the belief that individuals who experience distress about their sex should identify and live according to an internal sense of gender and that medical interventions — such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or surgery — can be used to delay puberty or alter sex characteristics.
Required instruction on topics such as human growth and development, sexuality and disease prevention in grades 7-12 must still be provided — but without content that violates the prohibition on sexual orientation or “gender theory” instruction.
Supporters, including parents and retired educators, argued the bill respects parental rights and prevents ideological indoctrination.
Opponents, including LGBTQ+ advocates and educators, contended it isolates and endangers vulnerable students, potentially increasing suicide rates. They highlighted the bill's potential legal issues, citing ongoing litigation over similar K-6 restrictions. Some speakers emphasized the importance of inclusive education and the need for schools to address students' diverse backgrounds and identities.
Supporters: Parents, not schools, should handle these topics
Republican lawmakers and conservative advocates framed the bill as a parental-rights measure and said schools should remain focused on core academics.
Salmon said discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity implicate deeply held religious and moral beliefs that should be addressed at home.
“Just as not all parents want others to teach their children about sex education because it involves family religious beliefs,” Salmon said, “not all parents want others to teach children about sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Several supporters echoed that theme during the hearing.
Anita Fischer, with the conservative group Protect My Innocence and the parent of a high school junior, said she has seen what she described as a “social contagion” of confusion around sexuality among younger high school students.
“Another positive and needed aspect of this bill is its respect for the role of parents and legal guardians by keeping schools focused on education, not ideology,” Fischer told lawmakers.
Patty Alexander, a retired educator from Indianola, said teachers are not mental health counselors and should not be responsible for discussing sexual identity.
“Introducing these confusing topics to students only encourages them to make irreversible decisions,” Alexander said. “Let’s not let ideologies replace knowledge and reason.”
Danny Carroll, senior policy adviser for the Christian conservative group The Family Leader, argued the bill would remove what he called a “very loud and profane distraction” from Iowa schools that gender theory has brought on. Carroll added he believes schools can still teach respect and kindness without formal instruction on gender or sexuality.
Opponents: bill erases students, chills speech
Opponents — including parents, students, educators and faith leaders — warned the proposal would silence LGBTQ+ students and families, undermine student safety and expose the state to further legal risk.
Bethany Snyder is an Urbandale parent and lesbian mom with a transgender partner. She told lawmakers the bill would signal to her high school daughter that their family is something to hide.
“Like every parent, we want our kid to feel safe, supported and ready for adulthood,” Snyder said. “… High schools prepare students for the real world, and in the real world LGBTQ people exist as parents, co-workers, legislators, historical figures and leaders and families like mine, and families like hers.
“Silence doesn't protect kids. It isolates them,” she continued. “It makes school less honest and less safe. My child exists. Our family exists, and no law will change that. You can decide whether Iowa schools respond to students with honesty and care or fear and silence, but either way, our family will continue to exist.”
Her daughter, Evelynn Snyder-Maul, a West Des Moines Valley High School freshman, said students are not being taught “gender ideology” in class and questioned whether simply talking about her family would become reportable.
“Students already don't feel safe at school, but LGBTQ+ students will feel even less safe and more isolated,” Snyder-Maul said.
Kaylara Hoadley, a Mason City parent of a nonbinary high schooler and a caseworker who supports families in crisis, said many LGBTQ+ youth she works with experience homelessness after family rejection and rely on schools as their only safe place.
“When the law silences teachers, counselors and staff, vulnerable youth suffer and suicide rates increase,” Hoadley said.
Legal concerns raised
Teachers and education advocates raised concerns about academic integrity and legal exposure.
Damian Thompson of Iowa Safe Schools said the bill mirrors a 2023 law, provisions of which are being contested before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for violating First Amendment rights, but today’s bill would apply to older students who have stronger constitutional protections.
“This bill would recreate the same constitutional problems we’re already seeing in the Eighth Circuit, but at a much larger scale,” Thompson said. He argued that as students age, the state’s authority to broadly restrict access to information becomes “more limited, not more expansive,” noting that high school students are expected to understand complex social and health issues.
Thompson also pointed to language in the bill barring “programs” and “promotion,” calling those terms overly broad.
“This legislation does not create clarity for educators or safety for students,” he said. “It creates confusion, chills speech and exposes the state to the same constitutional challenges courts are already flagging.”
Melissa Peterson of the Iowa State Education Association (ISEA) echoed those concerns, saying the bill grows out of Senate File 496, which remains tied up in litigation. Extending the same restrictions to middle and high school, she said, would likely land the state back in court.
“Wouldn't it be lovely if we could get rid of the distraction of this hyper focus on the issue of gender and sexual orientation in our public education system?” Peterson said. “Because it's not a thing. We want to get back to basics and provide a safe learning environment for every single one of our students as closely to as free from discrimination as possible. And that's one of the reasons why we are ultimately opposed to this legislation.”
Iowa Safe Schools and the ISEA are among the plaintiffs that have sued to block and overturn the 2023 state law.
Donahue: ‘We are focusing on the wrong things’
Donahue, the lone Democrat on the subcommittee, criticized the legislation as a political distraction.
“We should be focused on prioritizing public school funding, affordability for our people in this state, and making sure that we're balancing a budget in this state that is currently over $1 billion in deficit,” Donahue said. “We are focusing on the wrong things when we bring bills like this.”
Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com
Daily Newsletters