Iowa City Human Rights Commission adopts statement condemning removal of gender identity protections under Iowa law

The Iowa City Human Rights Commission voted to approve and release a statement condemning the removal of gender identity as a protected characteristic under the Iowa Civil Rights Act at its April 22 meeting.

The motion approved at the meeting directs release of the commission’s drafted statement, which includes language that “Iowa City Human Rights Commission condemns this legislation in the strongest manner possible, removing equal rights from any group of people is antithetical to the American ideal and way of life. We are ashamed this is the direction the Iowa legislature is moving our state. To our transgender neighbors, friends, and family, we see you, we accept you, and we support you.” Commissioners instructed staff to add a brief chapeau (a short introductory note) with current statistics and impact information to accompany the release.

Commission discussion included minor edits to wording (one commissioner requested capitalizing “State” in the phrase “state of Iowa”) and a proposal to attach contemporary statistics about impacts on transgender people. Commissioners agreed the historical context in the draft was important and requested communications staff prepare a short chapeau with data that can be updated as new information becomes available.

The motion passed. The commission recorded a final tally of six votes in favor, one abstention and no recorded “no” votes. During the meeting, Commissioner Cadura (recorded in the minutes) announced an abstention; Commissioners Mohammed and Idris Abdullahi stated yes on the record; another commissioner told the group later that their earlier unclear vote should be recorded as yes. The commission did not specify an effective date for the release beyond approving the statement and directing staff to add the chapeau; commissioners asked staff to distribute the statement as soon as the introductory material was prepared.

No external groups were recorded as formally signing on at the time of the vote; commissioners asked about whether outside organizations could co-sign after release and were told groups could republish or issue their own statements of agreement but the commission had not used a formal co-signature process recently.

Less urgent details: commissioners discussed using communications channels and circulating statistics and background material to support the statement’s release.