116 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
‘Love, not hate’: Iowans protest GOP bills targeting transgender protections and parenting rules
Iowa House advances bills limiting local transgender protections, shielding parents from abuse claims
Feb. 9, 2026 5:41 pm, Updated: Feb. 9, 2026 8:27 pm
The Gazette offers audio versions of articles using Instaread. Some words may be mispronounced.
DES MOINES — Dozens of transgender Iowans, their families and allies filled the Iowa Capitol on Monday, shouting “shame” as House Republicans advanced two bills that would strip cities of authority to protect transgender residents from discrimination and shield parents — including foster and adoptive parents — from child abuse claims tied to anti-transgender parenting decisions.
The emotionally charged hearings underscored a widening divide over civil rights, parental authority and the role of local government. LGBTQ advocates warned the measures invite discrimination and legalize conversion-therapy-like practices, while conservative supporters framed the legislation as necessary to ensure statewide consistency and protect parental rights.
Protesters decry bill targeting local civil rights protections
House Study Bill 664, introduced by Gov. Kim Reynolds, would limit local civil rights ordinances by barring cities and counties from offering protections broader than those in the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Supporters say the bill responds to local efforts to protect transgender Iowans after Reynolds signed legislation last year removing gender identity from the state civil rights code — a move that made Iowa the first state to repeal a previously protected class.
The bill would roll back protections enacted by local governments to cover transgender and nonbinary Iowans. Iowa City and Coralville each passed resolutions affirming protections in city code against discrimination based on gender identity following the Legislature’s rollback of statewide safeguards. And Ames is in the process of crafting an ordinance to restore antidiscrimination protections based on gender identity in local civil rights code.
The 2025 law repealed protections for transgender Iowans against discrimination in housing, employment, lending, public accommodations and more based on gender identity, while the Iowa Civil Rights Act continues to protect Iowans based on sex, race, disability and other characteristics.
Iowa City’s Human Rights Ordinance bars discrimination in credit, education, employment, housing and public accommodation on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation and other protected classes. Coralville’s ordinance, adopted in 2007, similarly prohibits discrimination.
Critics say the bill invalidates long-standing local ordinances and weakens local control — targeting cities that moved to fill gaps in the wake of the state law change.
Reynolds and Republican lawmakers argue adding gender identity to the Iowa Civil Rights Act in 2007 improperly “elevated” transgender rights and allowed access to spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams they say should be reserved for people assigned female at birth. After signing the repeal last year, Reynolds said the change “safeguards the rights of women and girls.”
Coralville City Council member Katie Freeman, who is transgender, called the measure government overreach.
“If you are unwilling to recognize the value of protecting gender identity at a state level,” Freeman told lawmakers, “let communities that understand that value do so on their own. … Trans rights are human rights.”
Sean McRoberts, an Iowa City pastor who uses they/them pronouns, said limiting municipal authority could lead to denied employment and services while worsening housing instability for transgender youth.
“In restricting local civil rights ordinances, you are inviting discrimination against trans people,” McRoberts told the committee.
They warned the measure would have severe consequences for transgender Iowans and criticized what they described as repeated legislative targeting of the community.
“Make no mistake, this bill will lead to the death of trans people in Iowa,” they said, urging legislators to abandon the proposal.
“When the state abandoned us, our local leaders responded, providing remedy for discrimination,” they continued. “Now you want to undo our work, but it is your efforts that are wasted because we're still here, and we always will be. … We will never forget your bigoted attempts to discriminate us to death. But don't you forget that we will always find one another and thus survive and thrive.
Democratic Rep. Ross Wilburn of Ames said removing local flexibility ignores the contextual realities cities face. “Folks in those communities live and work there,” Wilburn said, urging lawmakers to preserve local authority while broader civil rights questions are debated.
Republican lawmakers defended the bill as a matter of uniform governance. Rep. Skyler Wheeler, R-Hull, said a patchwork of ordinances would create confusion, arguing civil rights standards should be set statewide.
Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, defended the proposal as a way to avoid conflicting local rules, arguing statewide standards are needed for schools and businesses. He said recent state laws tying sports participation and restroom access to sex assigned at birth were intended to protect women and create uniform expectations.
“If you have local ordinances that say otherwise, what is the school supposed to do?” Holt said, warning that a “patchwork” of local policies would create confusion. He argued the state’s approach is designed to provide consistency, adding lawmakers acted “to ensure equal rights for everyone.”
Child welfare bill sparks fierce debate over parental rights
A separate measure, House Study Bill 669, would shield caregivers from child abuse or endangerment claims for raising children according to their biological sex — including declining gender-transition-related care — and prevent those decisions from affecting foster care licensing or custody rulings, and ensuring prospective adoptive parents cannot be disqualified for similar reasons.
Jim Florence of Ankeny told lawmakers the bill is necessary to protect foster and adoptive parents whose caregiving decisions are shaped by religious beliefs. Florence said he and his wife raise children in accordance with their Christian conviction that sex is established at birth and should guide parenting choices.
“We know from personal experience there needs to be legal protection for foster and adoptive parents who hold to religious convictions as Christians,” Florence said, adding that his family does not support gender transitioning.
Florence alleged his family faced discrimination during foster care training with a state-contracted agency because of their beliefs, saying their views were mocked and they were told they should not foster if they did not affirm LGBTQ identities. He said their foster license was later placed on hold in connection with their religious stance on same-sex marriage.
He argued that without legal safeguards, faith-based families may be discouraged from fostering.
“State-sanctioned ideologies that punish parents for their beliefs will significantly shrink the pool of foster parents in Iowa,” Florence said, warning such conflicts could also lead to litigation over First Amendment rights.
Florence emphasized that the bill would not prevent child welfare officials from considering a child’s needs when making placements. He urged lawmakers to advance the legislation, saying it would protect religious families while allowing the state to continue placing children in homes best suited to them.
Opponents said the bill risks legitimizing conversion therapy — the practice of attempting to change, modify or suppress a person's sexual orientation, sexual behaviors or gender identity — which major medical organizations have condemned.
Both the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association oppose conversion therapy, citing research that shows the practice leads to increased risk of suicide, depression, anxiety and substance abuse.
The AMA states such practices are built on the false premise that homosexuality and gender nonconformity are mental disorders. The AMA asserts that variation in sexual orientation and gender identity represents a natural and healthy part of human development.
Keenan Crow of LGBTQ+ advocacy organization One Iowa described conversion therapy as “dangerous” and “discredited,” saying survivors have shared accounts of humiliation and psychological harm.
“Conversion therapy is, in fact, not a therapy at all. It is torture,” Crow said, urging lawmakers to reject the measure and instead prohibit the practice statewide.
Adam Bessman, Drake University student and transgender man, told lawmakers the bill would legalize behavior that mirrors the emotional abuse he endured as a child. Bessman told the subcommittee his childhood included physical violence, threats and degradation that left lasting trauma and suicidal thoughts.
He warned lawmakers that shielding parents who force children to reject their gender identity risks repeating the emotional harm he experienced growing up. Passing the bill, he said, would allow parents to send the message that a child is “worthless” unless they change who they are.
“I am telling you, from experience, no child should ever go through that,” Bessman said, urging legislators to prioritize children’s safety and vote against advancing the measure.
Democratic Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, a transgender lawmaker from Hiawatha, called the bill “dangerous,” contending it relies on “faulty science” and frames parental rights in a way that could enable mistreatment of vulnerable children. She noted that under current Iowa law, parents are not required to affirm a child’s gender identity, but argued the proposal goes further by shielding actions she believes could cause harm.
She cited a Utah abuse case involving a counselor whose license had been suspended after trying to change her nonbinary niece’s identity through verbal abuse, isolation, starvation and exposure to freezing temperatures. The abuse went unaddressed for years, Wichtendahl said, until a severely malnourished child escaped the counselor’s home, prompting authorities to uncover the extent of harm to minors.
“These dangers are not theoretical,” she said, calling the bill “a shield for child abuse” and urging the committee to table it.
Republicans rejected those claims. Holt said the bill protects parental rights without preventing intervention in real abuse cases, and Rep. Jon Dunwell said it ensures families are not punished for beliefs about biological sex.
As chants of “Love, not hate” echoed through the hallway outside, the subcommittees advanced both measures to the full House Judiciary Committee, setting up continued debate in a Legislature where questions of gender identity, civil rights and parental authority remain among the session’s most divisive.
Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com
Daily Newsletters