����vlog

NOT NECESSARILY TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS. A WEEK FULL OF PASSIONATE PROTESTS AND EMOTIONAL PLEAS AT THE IOWA STATE HOUSE. PLEASE DON’T TAKE MY RIGHTS AWAY SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH WHO I AM A BIOLOGICAL MALE CANNOT BECOME A FEMALE, AND THAT A BIOLOGICAL FEMALE CANNOT BECOME A MALE. ENDS WITH IOWA BECOMING THE FIRST STATE IN THE COUNTRY TO REMOVE A PROTECTED CLASS FROM ITS CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. THOSE VOTING AGE 60, THOSE VOTING NO. 35 ABBOTT ARE NOT VOTING FIVE. THE CONSTITUTION IS DECLARED TO PASS THE HOUSE. TODAY ON ����vlog EIGHT NEWS CLOSE UP. WE’RE HEARING FROM BOTH SIDES. WHAT WILL BE REMEMBERED 100 YEARS FROM NOW IS THIS VOTE. IT IS FAR PAST TIME THESE ANTI-TRANS BILLS BE PLACED INTO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY. COMMON SENSE POLICIES ARE AT RISK SO LONG AS GENDER IDENTITY REMAINS. IN THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS CODE. AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR IOWANS WITH THE NEW LAW NOW IN PLACE. THIS IS IOWA’S NEWS LEADER. THIS IS ����vlog EIGHT NEWS. CLOSE UP. GOOD MORNING AND THANKS FOR JOINING US FOR ����vlog EIGHT NEWS CLOSE UP. I’M CHIEF POLITICAL REPORTER AMANDA ROOKER. A CONTROVERSIAL BILL REMOVING GENDER IDENTITY FROM IOWA’S CIVIL RIGHTS CODE, FAST TRACKED THROUGH THE STATE HOUSE LAST WEEK. IT IS NOW OFFICIALLY LAW. GOVERNOR KIM REYNOLDS HAS SIGNED THIS. NOW, PROTESTERS PACKED THE STATEHOUSE ROTUNDA AS LAWMAKERS DEBATED THE BILL LAST THURSDAY. THEY HELD SIGNS, CHANTED THINGS LIKE TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS. THE BILL WAS SIGNED AFTER REPUBLICANS FIRST INTRODUCED THE LEGISLATION A WEEK BEFORE IT WAS PASSED. THE LEGISLATION REMOVES GENDER IDENTITY AS A PROTECTED CLASS FROM THE STATE’S CIVIL RIGHTS LAW. IT ALSO CREATES NEW DEFINITIONS FOR FEMALE AND MALE, AND IT STATES THAT GENDER IS NOW A SYNONYM FOR SEX, NOT A SYNONYM FOR GENDER IDENTITY. I’M JOINED NOW BY MARK KENNEDY WITH DRAKE UNIVERSITY. HE IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOL’S CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CENTER. THANKS FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS. WE KNOW IOWA’S CIVIL RIGHTS CODE PROVIDES A WIDE RANGE OF PROTECTIONS IN AREAS LIKE HOUSING, EDUCATION, CREDIT, EMPLOYMENT. SO NOW THAT GENDER IDENTITY IS NO LONGER A PROTECTED CLASS, WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEONE FACES DISCRIMINATION IN THOSE AREAS BASED ON THEIR GENDER IDENTITY? FUNDAMENTALLY, THEY HAVE NO REMEDY, WHICH IS STUNNING BECAUSE WE THINK OF DENIAL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS TO PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR STATUS AS BEING TROUBLING. BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, IT REMOVES A METHOD OF GETTING A REMEDY THAT OFTEN GOES THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND PUTS THEM ALONE IN A CATEGORY OF BASICALLY, YOU’RE A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN, AND THERE’S A SUPREME COURT CASE THAT ACTUALLY DEALS WITH THIS BACK IN, AND IT’S BACK IN 1996. COLORADO, STATE OF COLORADO REMOVED ANY CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FOR GAY PEOPLE AND ONLY GAY PEOPLE. SO GAY PEOPLE WERE SINGLED OUT, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS NOT PARTICULARLY LIBERAL, VERY MUCH RULED THAT YOU CAN’T DO THAT. YOU CAN’T TARGET ONE GROUP ONCE THEY’RE PROTECTED, PULL THEM OUT OF THE OTHER PROTECTED GROUPS AND THEN ESSENTIALLY TREAT THEM AS INFERIOR. AND THEY PRETTY MUCH SAID, THAT’S THE DEFINITION OF ILLEGALITY. YOU CAN’T GET WORSE THAN THAT. SO THAT’S ONE POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, REPERCUSSION IS THAT THERE COULD BE LITIGATION. JUST GOING TO ASK YOU THAT. DO YOU FORESEE THAT THERE WILL BE MAYBE LITIGATION THEN FOLLOWING THAT PRECEDENT? YEAH. AND NOT JUST LITIGATION, BUT THERE’S PRECEDENT THAT WHILE IT’S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS CLOSE, BUT IN THE INTERIM, I THINK THERE’S GOING TO BE SITUATIONS THAT ARISE WHERE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRANSGENDER ARE GOING TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND HAVE NO REMEDY. AND I THINK AS IOWANS, WE LIKE TO THINK OF OURSELVES AS FAIR AND NICE. THAT DOESN’T SOUND FAIR OR NICE TO ME. WELL, I WILL SAY THAT THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS BILL SEVERAL TIMES POINTED TO THE 28 OTHER STATES THAT DON’T HAVE GENDER IDENTITY IN THEIR CODE. NOW, THOSE ARE NOT STATES THAT HAD GENDER IDENTITY AND PULLED IT AWAY. THEY NEVER ADDED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT THEY SAY IN THOSE STATES, TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS HAVE A REMEDY IF THEY FACE DISCRIMINATION BASED ON FEDERAL. PROTECTIONS. YOU KNOW, WHAT’S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT? ARE THERE FEDERAL REMEDIES TO DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE THERE ARE STATES THAT JUST SOLELY RELY ON FEDERAL LAW? THE EMPLOYMENT AREA. THERE’S A CASE CALLED BOSTOCK. AND IN THAT CASE, THE SUPREME COURT SEEMED TO SAY THAT DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY NOT ALLOWED AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, TRANSGENDER. AND THAT WAS A MAJOR RULING. HOWEVER, AMONG ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND DOCUMENTS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS ISSUED SEEM TO BE DIRECTIVES INDICATING THAT AT A MINIMUM, THEY’RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THIS. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT ALLOWS SOME INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE TREATED POORLY TO, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, BRING SOMETHING FORWARD. BUT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY, THE BOTTOM LINE IS, YES, THERE ARE SOME LIMITED PROTECTIONS. AND YES, EVEN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER. I THINK A LOT OF THAT IS SORT OF BY THE WAYSIDE WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ISSUING ALSO COUNTER EXECUTIVE ORDERS. SO OPTIMISTICALLY, MAYBE SOME OF THOSE DOCUMENTS STILL PROVIDE SOME PROTECTION. I THINK MORE REALISTICALLY, IT’S GOING TO RESULT. AND HAVING THIS NEW ADMINISTRATION HERE, I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER IT’S A GOOD ADMINISTRATION OR A BAD ADMINISTRATION. THEIR POLICIES ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY RIGHTS FROM TRANSGENDER PEOPLE. AND SO DOES THAT HELP A LITTLE BIT THAT THOSE THINGS EXIST? YES. DOES IT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN IN IOWA IF WE GET RID OF THIS, AND WE SEEM TO BE DOING SO? NO, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, DAY ONE OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE PRESIDENT SAID THERE ARE NOW TWO SEXES, MALE AND FEMALE, SOMETHING THAT WASN’T TALKED A LOT ABOUT DURING THE WEEK LONG DEBATE ON THIS, ON THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN IOWA NOW, IS THAT IT ALSO SETS UP NEW DEFINITIONS FOR SEX, FOR FEMALE, MALE, FOR MOTHER AND FATHER. IT SAYS IT SAYS AN INDIVIDUAL IS FEMALE. IF THEY HAVE A REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM OR THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF NATURAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE A REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM THAT PRODUCES OVA. AN INDIVIDUAL IS MALE IF SAME THING THROUGHOUT NATURAL DEVELOPMENT, THEY HAVE A REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM THAT PRODUCES --. NOW THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS FOR PEOPLE BORN WITH GENETIC ANOMALIES OR DEVELOPMENTAL ANOMALIES. BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN LEGALLY THAT THE STATE NOW HAS DIFFERENT LEGAL DEFINITIONS FOR TWO SEXES? WELL, I THINK ONE THING IT MEANS IS THAT THE STATE IS EVEN DOUBLING DOWN ON THIS DISTINCTION. AND IN SO DOING, TRYING TO REINFORCE ITS BINARY PERCEPTION OF THE SEXES, WHICH IGNORES, I THINK, THE WHOLE IDEA OF GENDER IDENTITY, WHICH WAS BEHIND THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION, THE OTHER 28 STATES REALLY ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE, AS YOU MENTIONED, THEY DIDN’T PASS IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE HEIGHT OF INSULTING. AND I BELIEVE, CONTRARY TO THE US SUPREME COURT CASE, THAT I MENTIONED, ROMER TO PASS IT AND THEN TAKE IT AWAY. THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED IN ROMER. THEY PASSED A LAW TO PROTECT GAY PEOPLE, AND THEY TOOK IT AWAY. AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID, THAT’S JUST UNBELIEVABLE. YOU CAN’T DO THAT. SO IT’S INTERESTING ABOUT THE 28 STATES, AND IT’S INTERESTING ABOUT THE NEW DEFINITIONS, BUT I SUSPECT THE NEW DEFINITIONS ARE NOT GOING TO BE USED IN A WAY TO FAVOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE, GIVEN WHAT’S GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN IOWA. AND WE HAVE OTHER LEGISLATION ALREADY ON THE BOOKS THAT IS NEGATIVE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER PEOPLE. SO ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, IF YOU ALREADY HAVE LEGISLATION ON THE BOOKS DEALING WITH SPECIFIC, NARROW ISSUES THAT YOU’RE CONCERNED ABOUT, TRANSGENDER PEOPLE, WHY DO YOU NEED THIS ONE? AND THERE ARE PRESUMPTIONS FROM THIS EARLIER LEGISLATION, TOO, THAT TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ARE PREDATORY. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE BATHROOM ARGUMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT’S THE EVIDENCE THAT TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ARE PREDATORY? WHAT’S THE ASSUMPTION THERE? IT’S A VERY HOSTILE NEGATIVE ASSUMPTION. EXACTLY. THE KIND OF NEGATIVE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN ROMER SEEMED TO SAY, YOU CAN’T MAKE ONE OTHER. WE’RE SHORT ON TIME HERE. BUT ONE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU ALSO IN THE LEGISLATION, IT STATES, QUOTE, THE TERM EQUAL DOES NOT MEAN SAME OR IDENTICAL. IT ALSO SAYS, QUOTE, SEPARATE ACCOMMODATIONS ARE NOT INHERENTLY UNEQUAL. NOW, NOW HAVING THAT IN STATE LAW, DOES THAT CREATE DOES THAT OPEN THE DOOR FOR OTHER LEGAL CHANGES THAT GO BEYOND GENDER IDENTITY? WELL, THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE’VE ALWAYS THOUGHT OF SEGREGATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL, WHICH REALLY WASN’T EQUAL ANYWAY AS BEING SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN’T SAY AS A GOOD THING. AND SO NOW WE’RE VINDICATING IT IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT, WHICH I THINK IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE WHOLE IDEA OF CASES LIKE BROWN VERSUS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. ET CETERA. IT’S A DIFFERENT GROUP, AND IT’S A GROUP WITH DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS. BUT IT SEEMS INHERENTLY OPEN TO WHAT’S CALLED A SLIPPERY SLOPE IN THE LAW. SLIPPERY SLOPE IS WHEN A DOOR GETS OPENED SLIGHTLY AND THEN ONCE IT GETS OPENED SLIGHTLY, PEOPLE JUST RUN THROUGH IT. SO I THINK THAT COULD BE A DANGER. WELL, THAT’S ALL THE TIME THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR CONVERSATION. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS MORNING. WE APPRECIATE IT. SURE. NEXT WE SIT DOWN WITH ONE IOWA’S DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND ADVOCACY TO HEAR THE CONCERNS REGARDING THIS BILL AND HOW IT COULD IMPA