The Iowa House passed two measures Wednesday that Democrats and opponents said would harm marginalized populations, including transgender Iowans, throughout the state.
HF 2557 creates exemptions to the definitions of “child abuse” and “child endangerment” in Iowa Code for a parent’s response to a child whose gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth. A parent cannot be considered abusive or be exempt from considerations in foster parent licensing, adoption or custody proceedings based on their “intent to raise, guide or instruct a child in a manner consistent with the child’s sex.”
Rep. Jon Dunwell, R-Newton, argued the bill was necessary because “in states across the country, we have already seen parents lose custody, lose foster licenses, and even face criminal investigations simply for refusing to affirm a child’s belief that they are the opposite sex.”
“We have seen children removed from loving homes and placed on irreversible medical paths that carry lifelong risks of infertility, bone density, loss, sexual dysfunction and regret,” Dunwell said. “A recent Federal Health and Human Services report confirms what many of us have long suspected: There is deep uncertainty about the benefits of so-called gender-affirming care, while the harms are well-documented. Iowa will not go down that road.”
The report in question, published by the Department of Health and Human Services in May 2025 in response to a directive by President Trump, has been criticized by a range of health and research organizations for its anonymous authors, use of unscientific and ideologically tinged phrases like “social contagion” and “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to refer to trans youth, sparse evidence showing harm caused by gender-affirming care, and focus on “exploratory psychotherapy,” another term for discredited conversion therapy, as an alternative to affirming care.
The measure follows several years of actions targeting transgender Iowans, including a 2025 measure removing “gender identity” from the Iowa Civil Rights Act and a 2023 law banning gender-affirming medical care for minors.
Actions which cannot be considered abuse under the bill include refusing to consent to a child receiving gender-affirming medical care or refusing to call a child by a name or pronouns that differ from their sex assigned at birth.
It also states that a parent “seeking and consenting to a mental health service for a child for the purpose of helping the child live a life consistent with the child’s sex” cannot be considered child abuse or endangerment — a provision Democrats and advocates have argued would legalize the practice of conversion therapy, in which a person is subject to psychological, behavioral or physical treatment aimed at altering a person’s gender identity or sexual identity.
Conversion therapy is a discredited practice that many major medical organizations have issued statements against, saying that there is not medical or scientific evidence proving a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation can or should be changed. The American Medical Association has stated conversion therapy often leads to trauma and worse mental health outcomes for people subject to these interventions.
Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, D-Hiawatha, said because there are no conversion therapy practices approved by any major medical organization, Iowa children receiving the “treatment” allowed under the bill will not be receiving care from a licensed mental health professional.
“That means that only unregulated, unlicensed and unaccredited people will have unsupervised access to children, and that harms the health, well-being and future of Iowa’s children,” Wichtendahl said.
Wichtendahl, the first transgender Iowan elected to the Legislature, said while the bill is focused specifically on gender identity, it will also impact Iowa children who dress, have interests or otherwise act in ways their guardians believe do not correctly align with their sex assigned at birth. She said the bill is “designed to shield abusers.”
“I know many in this chamber care about child safety, but this bill is being inked with the blood and the tears of the next generation,” Wichtendahl said. “And as a majority member of this chamber once said, ‘When in doubt, err on the side of the victims.’ So that is what I’m asking you today, err on the side of the victims of conversion therapy.”
Rep. Angelina Ramirez, D-Cedar Rapids, who works with young Iowans through the Kids First Law Center and nonprofit Our Future, shared the story of a nonbinary student she worked with who she called “Jax.” She said when this child was 12, their father, who did not approve of their gender identity, “forced them to go shirtless at a public pool,” alongside other instances of verbal, emotion and physical abuse, and their father refusing to allow them to go to therapy.
While Jax’s mother eventually got full custody rights, Ramirez said if the bill were in effect, “Jax would still be in that house, exposed to that violence.”
“Under HF 2557, everything Jax’s father did — refusing mental health care, forcing Jax to conform to their assigned sex at birth through humiliating acts — would be explicitly exempted from the definition of child abuse,” Ramirez said. “Jax’s father would have used this bill, had it been law, to defend his actions. Jax’s father would be exactly the person this bill protects.”
Dunwell said the bill “does not change the definition of real child abuse — physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect.”
“What this bill does is prevent the state from inventing a new category of abuse, the crime of believing that boys are boys and girls are girls,” Dunwell said. “… This bill protects birth parents, foster parents and adoptive parents alike. It protects children from being caught in the middle of an ideological experiment that has already harmed too many kids in other states, and it tells every Iowa family you have the right to raise your child consistent with biological reality without the fear of government taking that child away.”
The measure passed 65-31.
Democrats say repealing affirmative action could endanger federal funding
The House also passed HF 2711 in a 64-29 vote Wednesday, a measure removing multiple provisions related to affirmative action from state law. It would remove affirmative action plans and reports currently required under Iowa law for entities including the Iowa departments of Education and Administration, the judicial branch, the state Board of Regents, community colleges, school districts and area education agencies.
Rep. Skyler Wheeler, R-Hull, said “Iowa should reward hard work, talent and qualifications, not skin color, gender or other identity factors.”
“By striking affirmative action requirements from state agencies, schools, universities, and employment, House File 2711 ends race and gender preferences that divide Iowans and undermine equal opportunity under the law,” he said. “… It’s a step toward a truly colorblind society that honors the promises of our Constitution.”
But Democrats argued the measure will create more inequities in the state. Rep. Megan Srinivas, D-Des Moines, said removing these reporting requirements endangers federal funding from multiple sources, as some federal grants require monitoring and reporting of data that cannot be collected if the bill becomes law.
Outside of funding considerations, Srinivas said the bill will make it more difficult to find when civil rights violations and other acts of discrimination occur.
“This bill is not removing discrimination, it’s removing our ability to detect it and act on it before it turns into a larger problem,” Srinivas said. “The Civil Rights Acts and the federal edicts still exist at the federal level — we still have to follow those. But now, if we can’t even detect where the problems exist. Then we can’t stop it until it gets to litigation, until it gets to settlements, and that costs taxpayer money. Why do we want to spend public funds on fighting issues we could have stopped, when those same taxpayer funds could have been used to provide services to Iowans instead?”
The bill also removes training requirements for law enforcement related to racial and cultural awareness at the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy, as well as annual bias prevention training for law enforcement agencies.
The bill was amended to add back training requirements for deescalation techniques, and to remove references to policies dealing with citizenship — both changes that Srinivas said were beneficial, though she said she remained concerned the Legislature was taking away “critical training” from law enforcement.
Rep. Jennifer Konfrst, D-Windsor Heights, said one of her “proudest days” as a lawmaker was when Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law the 2020 measure on police oversight, training and conduct that included the provision on implicit bias and deescalation training.
“It was a really important piece of legislation — so important, in fact, that it passed this chamber unanimously, passed the Senate unanimously, and made it to the governor’s desk in a way that we all agreed, from a bipartisan perspective, was a really powerful and important tool,” Konfrst said. “It was a good response to circumstances happening in 2020, and it was also a good measure of how we can continue to ensure our law enforcement are treating Iowans fairly.”
Konfrst said she was “devastated to see that, apparently, we think the problem is fixed, and we no longer need to train our law enforcement on these issues.”
Wheeler said Konfrst correctly characterized the bill as a “response,” saying it was “an emotional response at the time” and called implicit or unconscious bias “junk science.” He also responded to Srinivas’ concerns about the measure removing federal funding by saying the measure will save taxpayer money by removing reporting requirements and “unnecessary” positions.
He said the bill is the best way to ensure a “fair” system.
Robin Opsahl covers the Iowa Legislature and politics for Iowa Capital Dispatch, where this story first appeared.
