The House Education Committee moved forward Wednesday with legislation that would prohibit instruction and materials on gender identity and sexual orientation for all K-12 students.
HF 2121, approved 14-9, is an expansion of the 2023 ban on programs, material, instruction, surveys and questionnaires and “promotion” related to gender identity and sexual orientation for K-6 students.
Rep. Helena Hayes, R-New Sharon, who introduced the measure, made few comments on it during the committee meeting. But at a subcommittee meeting on the bill earlier Wednesday, she said the focus of Iowa schools should be on teaching curriculum like English, math, music and history.
“This very narrow bill, it simply says, ‘teachers, please focus on educational topics, please talk about academics,’” Hayes said. “And that’s what we’re asking our educators to do, and that’s as simple as it is — stay focused on the topic at hand. And that is we want to graduate — intelligent, articulate, critical thinkers into this world.”
Parents, religious leaders and students spoke in opposition to the measure during the subcommittee meeting, saying it would prevent LGBTQ+ students, educators and their family members from speaking about their lives at school.
Rev. Steve Sieck, minister at the First Unitarian Church of Des Moines, said he believes limiting discussion on gender and sexuality in schools is “counterproductive” to teaching students.
“If the goal is to instruct on human sexuality and self-esteem and stress management, then pretending that LGBTQ adolescents or their parents or their siblings can’t be talked about, I feel, is counterproductive,” Sieck said. “If 27 percent of the LGBTQ population in Iowa have kids, including my neighbors — I’m not sure how my neighbors are supposed to fill out any survey or questionnaire about their home or discussion about their home life if they’re unable to refer to their two moms. I’m not sure how the 25 percent of teens who identify as LGBTQ are supposed to learn about relationships or sexuality or gender or self-esteem or stress management, if they’re not allowed to talk about that.”
Katherine Bogaards with the group Protect My Innocence Pella said she supported the bill, as it “gives families confidence that schools will remain focused on academics and age-appropriate, research-based health education, not topics that confuse or overwhelm the students.”
“Supporting this bill is about preserving family values, respecting parental authority and assuring minors are allowed to grow up without unnecessary pressure related to sexual orientation and gender identity,” Bogaards said.
Some speakers supporting the measure brought up the 2025 change made in Iowa Code referring to discussion on transgender individuals and gender as “gender theory” instead of “gender identity.” This is defined in law as the “concept that an individual may properly be described in terms of an internal sense of gender that is incongruent with the individual’s sex as either male or female,” that a person who “experiences distress or discomfort with the individual’s sex should identify as and live consistent with the individual’s internal sense of gender,” and that an individual can pursue medical treatments like puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy or surgeries to delay puberty or develop certain sex characteristics.
Rep. Jeff Shipley, R-Birmingham, told legislators at the subcommittee he believed the definition of “gender theory” in Iowa law “is pretty good.” He said he believes if classroom discussion on this subject follows the definition of “gender theory” written in Iowa law, he said “I think that’s probably fairly appropriate and necessary” for students in grades 10 through 12 to discuss.
“I think high school students probably are mature enough to debate that and discuss that in a classroom setting,” Shipley said.
When a Senate subcommittee discussed the companion bill in January, several organizations brought up that the legality of the state’s ban on gender identity and sexual orientation materials and instruction for K-6 students is currently being questioned. This provision of the 2023 law, as well as the prohibition keeping books containing depictions of sexual acts from being available in K-12 school libraries, are currently blocked from enforcement as two cases challenging the law in the courts.
One of the lawsuits, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, challenges both the measures banning certain books from school libraries, alongside the ban on school materials and instructions related to gender and sexuality. The other suit was filed by publisher Penguin Random House and a group of authors alongside the Iowa State Education Association, challenging the restriction on books available in school libraries.
The injunction granted by a federal district court judge in May 2025 stated the language prohibiting material related to gender identity and sexual orientation are vague enough to prompt questions about whether school districts and educators are restricted from allowing extracurricular activities related to these subjects to exist, like Gender Sexuality Alliances, or GSAs.
“The words ‘program’ and ‘promotion’ are simply too broad to refer only to mandatory classroom curriculum and instead prohibit school districts and educators from, among other things, making extracurricular activities relating to gender identity and sexual orientation available to students in grade 6 or below,” U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher wrote. “These restrictions therefore violate students’ First Amendment rights and are facially unconstitutional.”
Education and LGBTQ+ advocates have told lawmakers students’ First Amendment rights are given more protection as they grow older, meaning expanding the existing law would make this provision more likely to be found unconstitutional.
Rep. Elinor Levin, D-Iowa City, said at the committee meeting “it seems imprudent” for the Legislature to expand a law that is currently being adjudicated in court. She also asked, “if this is such an important restriction to put in place, why is it being applied to school districts, charter schools and innovation zone schools, and not private schools?”
Bill addresses student free speech
The House Education Committee also advanced HF 2106 in a 16-7 vote Wednesday. The bill proposes banning schools from discriminating against or penalizing students for their engagement in religious, political or ideological speech, from expressing certain viewpoints on an issue that differ from views and speech authorized to be expressed at school by “similarly situated students.”
Rep. Samantha Fett, R-Carlisle, said the provision is to ensure students are not being targeted for having or expressing certain beliefs at schools.
“A real example would be one student walks into class with a button on their backpack that’s pro-life, another student walks into class with a button that says pro-choice,” Fett said. “Those students are similarly situated. … They can [both] have that button on their backpack. They can’t have their button on that backpack if there was an actual school policy that said, ‘no buttons allowed on backpacks.’”
Rep. Angelina Ramirez, D-Cedar Rapids, said these protections for students are already guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that the measure was “unnecessary.” Ramirez said the bill may also create an “unfunded mandate” for schools, as the bill proposes requiring professional development training programs for educators “regarding constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression in public elementary and secondary schools” and annual certification of compliance with the state policy.
The committee also passed two other contentious bills Wednesday:
- HF 2171 proposes eliminating immunization requirements for Iowa elementary and secondary school students. Democrats and advocates representing medical organizations have spoken in opposition to the bill, saying the measure would be detrimental to public health. But Rep. Brooke Boden, R-Indianola, said at the committee meeting, “This is a not a bill that says ‘do not vaccinate.’ This is a bill that says that you don’t have to be vaccinated to attend school.”
- HSB 636 would ban public, charter and innovation zone schools from entering contracts with public libraries to host mobile libraries on school grounds, often known as “bookmobiles.” The measure also bans schools from entering agreements with public libraries that allow students to use their school ID cards to access library materials. Boden said during the subcommittee meeting on the bill, lawmakers heard from several schools that do not have libraries in their buildings and work under 28E agreements with public libraries.
Boden said she was committed to resolving this issue of shared services before the bill goes to the floor of the Iowa House. However, she said she believes the restriction on these agreements was needed as public libraries do not have the same restrictions on certain materials, like books depicting sex acts, that are now in place for Iowa school libraries.
“I guess I take offense to the fact that it’s been alluded to tonight that Republicans don’t want — or that my caucus does not want children to read. I absolutely want children to read,” Boden said. “Reading is so important, but we also don’t want our kids reading literature that, you know, they’re going to need counseling for for the rest of their lives.”
Robin Opsahl covers the Iowa Legislature and politics for Iowa Capital Dispatch, where this story first appeared.
