A plurality of Iowans oppose Gov. Kim Reynolds’ effort to change how the state issues birth certificates in order to identify transgender people, according to a new Iowa Poll. In the survey of 804 adults conducted by Selzer & Co. for the Des Moines Register and Mediacom, 49 percent opposed the proposed change, while 44 percent supported it and 7 percent were not sure.
On Feb. 1, one day after an Iowa House subcommittee rejected a bill to remove protection for transgender Iowans from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the governor’s office sent a wide-ranging bill targeting the legal status of transgender Iowans to the House. The two most widely discussed provisions of the bill when it was introduced required driver’s licenses and birth certificates to display the sex assigned to a transgender person at birth, as well as their current gender.
“This will ultimately require transgender people to out themselves anywhere they have to present their ID (voting, picking up a package, buying alcohol at the grocery store, etc.),” One Iowa, the LGBTQ rights advocacy organization, said after the governor introduced the bill.
The obvious danger that might create for transgender people led to the provision changing driver’s licenses to be removed from the bill before it was passed by the House Education Committee on Feb. 6. The section changing how birth certificates are issued to indicate a person who gets an updated birth certificate is transgender is still a part of HF 2389.
In the survey conducted from Feb. 25 to 28, pollsters asked people if they favored or opposed “Requir[ing] transgender Iowans’ birth certificates to include both their sex at birth and their current gender identity.”
Unsurprisingly, there was a sharp partisan divide in attitudes. Sixty-three percent of respondents who said they are Democrats opposed the requirement, while 50 percent of self-identified Republicans supported it, according to the Register. Among independents, 48 percent oppose it and 45 percent support it.
According to Selzer & Co., the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
The change to birth certificates was the only part of HF 2389 included in the poll, but the bill’s impact would go far beyond that if it is signed into law.
HF 2389 creates new definitions in Iowa Code that would have to be used in all laws and regulations. It defines a female as “a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ‘ova’ and a ‘male’ as a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”
“The term ‘woman’ or ‘girl’ refers to a female and the term ‘man’ or ‘boy’ refers to a male,” the section continues.
The bill classifies a person “born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of disorder or difference of sex development” as disabled and eligible for “legal protections and accommodations afforded under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and applicable state law.”
It would allow transgender people to be denied equal access to some facilities, declaring that the “term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or ‘identical.’ Separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.”
HF 2389 also changes how “vital statistics” are collected for “complying with state antidiscrimination laws or… [for] state public health, crime, economic or other data.” Not only would state agencies be restricted to just using the definitions in the bill, so would every “city, county, township, or school district.” That would prevent cities, counties, school districts and the state from having accurate information about trans people and “erases nonbinary people from the law entirely,” One Iowa noted.
Normally, a bill that makes such important changes to state laws would be assigned to the House Judiciary Committee — the same committee that rejected the bill to change the Iowa Civil Rights Act — or the State Government Committee. But the governor’s bill was assigned the House Education Committee instead. Education Committee Chair Skyler Wheeler, a Republican from Hull, said he asked House leaders to assign the bill to his committee.
Wheeler, who has said his approach to governing is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, has been one of the most vocal of the House leaders who have pushed anti-LGBTQ bills through the Iowa Legislature in recent years. He fast-tracked HF 2389, which was approved at both the subcommittee- and committee-levels on the same day, becoming eligible for a floor vote. So far, only Republicans have voted in favor of the bill.
The party-line votes approving the bill came only two working days after the governor introduced it, which meant it was impossible for lawmakers to consider all the possible ramifications of HF 2389 would have on laws and regulations in the state.
The definitions in the bill “will override definitions in other statues that already exist,” Keenan Crow of One Iowa said during a second public hearing on HF 2389 after the Education Committee passed it. “The word ‘mother’ itself is mentioned 325 times in Iowa Code. Are you confident, have you gone through each of these statutes to ensure that you haven’t created any unintended consequences there?”
Committee members do not respond to questions during hearings, but the answer to that question was obvious. According to the governor, such a review is unnecessary before voting on the bill.
“Women and men are not identical; they possess unique biological differences,” Reynolds said in the statement when she sent the bill to the legislature. “That’s not controversial, it’s common sense.”