By Seth Boyes,
Seth Boyes, News Editor
Well, Iowa made history again. Not necessarily in a good way.
The Hawkeye state is now the first in the nation to remove protections for a group of people previously covered under the state’s Civil Rights Act. The term “gender identity” — which was added to the state’s civil rights code in 2007 — is to be removed after Gov. Kim Reynolds signed Senate File 418 on Friday. Among other things, opponents of the law fear the change will open the doors to discrimination against transgender individuals seeking employment and housing or even applying for credit.
As the bill was being debated, I happened to be reading the late John Lewis’ biography, as laid out in the three-part graphic novel “March” — I’m a few years behind in my recreational reading, I know. At any rate, I had civil rights on my mind, and the former Georgia congressman’s contributions to the Civil Rights movement shone with particular modern relevance — that’s the thing about worthy actions I guess, they tend to remain untarnished by history.
Lewis was of course involved with the organized sit-ins at lunch counters across southern states during the 1960s — which, all things considered, is frighteningly recent. At that time, businesses had the right to refuse to serve members of the public based on their skin color. Those same racial lines applied to drinking fountains, restrooms — all sorts of things. Heck, up until 1968, mortgage lenders were able to deny credit applications based on the applicant’s address. The practice was called redlining, and it allowed creditors to avoid serving typically black-populated urban neighborhoods, regardless of whether the applicants actually qualified for a loan.
Through a modern lens, that’s clearly unjust — which probably has something to do with why the Fair Housing Act outlawed the practice. I bring this up because it seems to be one of the least subjective aspects at play — evidently, folks do have a right to access credit without facing discrimination. Yet, many of Iowa’s lawmakers voted to strike language which provided people of various gender identities that same protection in Iowa — and, as usual, I’ll admit I’m no legal expert, but it would seem to be perfectly fine under the new state law if someone is denied credit or housing or employment because their gender matches the one they were assigned at birth.
Some proponents of Iowa’s new law have argued transgender folks (and assumably the rest of us) won’t lose any rights due to the change in the law, since we would all still be afforded protections under the U.S. Constitution.
Seems like a good point. I mean, the Constitution hasn’t seen a new amendment in more than 30 years. So, while we have to admit it does indeed need updating from time to time in order to protect the rights of citizens or to remove restrictions affecting them, it’s a pretty solid document overall.
That said, it’s not the only line of protection when it comes to protecting the public’s rights. And I imagine a number of state legislators would agree with me — at least I think they would have a few years ago, when they were proposing Iowa add Second Amendment protections to its state constitution (the amendment was ratified by Iowa voters in 2022, with about 65 percent support at the polls).
I may have a few white hairs in my beard these days, but I seem to recall some of the folks who advocated for that amendment making the claim that repeating federal language at the state level would serve to only strengthen the protections provided to Iowa’s residents.
One might assume the same would apply to anti-discrimination law.
Admittedly, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t outright name gender identity among the groups the federal government protects against discrimination. However, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development decided in 2021 that enforcement of the Fair Housing Act (that same act from 1968 that ended redlining) meant housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity were prohibited. And HUD’s decision came after a 2020 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court which found “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defied the law.”
So, if the goal is to bolster the public’s rights by aligning with federal protections, I’d say it’s pretty clear where Uncle Sam stands when it comes to discrimination based on gender identity.
That said, in a dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the court’s decision might have effects beyond federal statutes — a possibility he said was illustrated by cases filed among the lower courts in which transgender individuals were challenging “a variety of federal, state and local laws and policies on constitutional grounds.”
Well, some have said Iowa’s new stance on discrimination might not hold up to legal challenges. So, I guess time will eventually tell us just how right Alito was.
Agree with Seth? Think he’s got it completely backwards or he’s missed the point entirely? Let your voice be heard. Letters to the editor may be emailed to editor@decorahleader.com or dropped off at 110 Washington St. Suite 4 in Decorah.
Submit A Comment
Fill out the form to submit a comment. All comments require approval by our staff before it is displayed on the website.