Seven Abortion Bills Filed So Far in Iowa

Seven abortion-related bills have been filed in the Iowa Legislature this session; six of them are horrible, and one should pass. But I am so far behind that I cannot possibly write seven separate articles. Instead, this post will include a short summary of each bill with links to the file online and contact info of the sponsors. I expect several of the worst will pass both houses and be signed into law by Governor Reynolds. The GOP controls both houses of the legislature and the Governor. They can do whatever they want. And right now, they want to pander to their base: evangelical Christian voters who hate abortion.

First up: Senate Joint Resolution 2001: This is the proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution stating that Iowa does not secure or protect a right to or require the funding of abortion. The Iowa Senate has already passed the resolution along party lines. The House will almost certainly vote in favor as well. To become law, two consecutive General Assembles must approve it and then go to a statewide vote in a general election. That could happen as early as 2022 so there is time to stop this. It all depends on whether Democrats can take control of at least one side of the Statehouse in November.

House File 2390, filed by the Committee on Human Resources: This bill is about emergency care policy and procedures for ambulatory surgical centers. This underhanded bill doesn’t even mention the word “abortion,” but it is one of the worst filed so far. Among other things, it would require prearranged written agreements with both an ambulance service and a local hospital transporting patients who need emergency services at an ER. No hospital in Iowa would sign that agreement. No Ambulance service in Iowa would sign that agreement. If this bill passes, it would effectively put every abortion provider in the state out of business.

House Study Bill 678, filed by the Committee on Human Resources.This bill would require all abortion facilities in Iowa to file for an annual license for a fee of $2000, and undergo annual inspections by the Department of Inspections and Appeals. In other words, this is a TRAP law (Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers) designed to impose unneseccessary, costly rules on abortion facilities that don’t apply to any other outpatient surgery centers.

House File 2352, by Jacobson: This bill would allow for a parent, court-appointed guardian, or conservator to seek damages for personal injury to a viable fetus. It also grants the fetus due process and equal protection of the law separately from the mother. I don’t necessarily oppose the spirit of this bill. Women should be able to sue for damages a person who injures her fetus. But I think this bill would make it easier to sue abortion providers. If a woman has an abortion, then changes her mind sometime later, she could sue the abortion provider and win, even if she wanted it at the time and the doctor performed it without complications. Standard caveat: I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong about this bill. If anyone out there with relevant legal expertise would like to weigh in on this, I would love to hear from you.

Jon Jacobson (R), Pottawattomie County

House file 2316 filed by Jon Thorup: This bill claims to be about informed consent for medication abortions. It would require a large sign to be conspicuously posted in every abortion facility stating that it may be possible to reverse the effects of a medication abortion involving abortion-inducing drugs. This is a lie. No proper, double-blind, peer-reviewed studies of abortion reversals have ever been published in any reputable medical journal. No medical schools teach how to do them, and no abortion providers offer to perform them. Science does not support abortion reversals. Period.

Senate File 2215, filed by Brad Zaun: I have previously written about this bill. Iowa law currently requires all women seeking an abortion to have a costly, unnecessary, invasive ultrasound 72 hours prior to the procedure. Women can choose to listen to the fetal heartbeat and the doctor’s description of the images if they want to. This bill “fixes” the law by FORCING women to listen to the fetal heartbeat and the doctor’s description of the images. But it isn’t all bad. Brad Zaun’s bill graciously allows women to avert their eyes from the screen and stick fingers in their ears to muffle the sound.

Senate File 2033 filed by Janet Peterson, Liz Mathis, Jackie Smith, Zach Wahls, Tony Bisignano, Jim Lykam, Eric Giddons, Herman Quirmbach, Joe Bolkcom, Amanda Ragan, Claire, Celsi, William Dotzler, Robert Hogg, Nate Boulton, and Todd Taylor. This bill seeks to reverse the disastrous 2017 law that blocked Planned Parenthood clinics in Iowa from accessing federal grants that pay for family planning services and education. It is the only abortion-related bill filed so far this year that would actually reduce the number of unwanted children born — and therefore the number of abortions performed in Iowa. This approach is science-based and proven to work. But it probably won’t get a single Republican vote and will likely die in committee.

If these bills upset you, if you value women’s rights and their ability to make their own decisions about their health and lives, please contact your state senators and representatives. Call them, email them, write to them. Tell them to oppose every one of these bills except the last. Do it now. Do it tomorrow. Do it next week. Talk to them until they fear for their jobs in their next election.

HF2344: Should We Be Worried About This?

[This post has been updated. See below.]

While perusing bills filed at the Iowa Statehouse, I discovered a mystery bill, House File 2344. I would like to throw this out to you, the readers to help me figure this out. Is this something we should be concerned about?

Filed by Representatives Phyllis Thede (D), Jeff Shipley(R), Jeff Kurtz(D), and Bruce Hunter(D), this bill gives a huge, retroactive property tax cut to a single unnamed “religious institution.”

Division I of the bill makes minor mundane changes to property tax code that seem unremarkable.

Division II however, is strange indeed.

From the EXPLANATION section of the bill:

…notwithstanding the requirement for the filing of a statement claiming the property tax exemption by February 1, for the assessment years beginning January 1, 2018, and January 1, 2019, the statement claiming the exemption for property owned by a religious institution that was acquired by the religious institution from another religious institution during the calendar year 2015, and that is located in a city having a population of at least 90,000 but not more than 100,000 according to the 2010 federal decennial census, shall be filed not later than 30 days following the effective date of division II of the bill.

So this anonymous church acquired land from another religious institution in 2015. Its location is in a city with a population between 90,000 and 100,00 people according to the 2010 census. A quick google search tells me that it must be Davenport (pop. 99685).

So what is going on here? I am not a lawyer and I readily admit I don’t entirely understand the language in this bill. It is dense and confusing — probably on purpose.

Nonetheless, it is possible that the authors of the bill are trying to solve a problem that is totally innocuous. Maybe the “religious institution” really does deserve the tax break according to iowa law. But if so, why the obfuscation? Why didn’t they just name the church, be up front about it, and explain why it should receive the tax break? Three of the bill’s sponsors are Democrats and one is Republican, so it is a bipartisan effort.

I don’t understand it and I am massively curious. If anybody out there has information that could shed more light on this I would love to hear from you. Leave a message in the comments or email me at activism@iowaatheists.org.

I will update this article as I learn more.

[Update: Solved it. This bill is about a church in Davenport that moved to a larger location in 2015 and didn’t realize it had to reapply for its property tax abatement.

The problem started back in 2015. That's when the church moved from their old spot on Pine street to their new, bigger church. But county officials say when they moved, their tax exemption didn't go with them.

"Almost thirty years in existence and you never have taxes, and all of a sudden you get a bill," says Pastor Livingston.

It's a $100,000 bill for four years of property taxes owed to Scott County. But how?

"They didn't fill out the form," says Scott County Board Chairman Tony Knobbe.

He says when a charity moves, they have to refile a tax exemption form, something Mount Sinai never did.

"It's your responsibility to understand the law," says Knobbe.

That explains a lot. I’m not going to be too concerned about this going forward. I don’t think there are any church/state separation issues with it. Although I bet our lawmakers wouldn’t have passed a bill like this if it were, say, an FFRF building that moved instead of a church. Oh well.]

Thanks in advance.

By Robert Cook

Activism Chair, Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers

How to Fix a Bad Abortion Bill, GOP Version.

Iowa law currently requires all women seeking an abortion to have an unnecessary, invasive, ultrasound. The woman must certify to the abortion provider that she had the ultrasound 72 hours prior and that she had the opportunity to see the images and hear the fetal heartbeat. Clearly this is a horrible, vindictive law with a host of problems. 

Republican State Senator Brad Zaun from Polk County, looked at the flaws in this statute and decided to fix it with Senate File 2215. Women seeking an abortion shouldn’t be offered an opportunity to listen to the heartbeat and the doctor’s detailed description of the fetus. 

No, indeed.

They should be given an unnecessary, invasive ultrasound 72 hours prior and FORCED to listen to the doctor’s detailed description of the fetus, its external digits, internal organs if visible, and its heartbeat. 

Brad Zaun’s bill does allow the woman to turn down the volume and avert her eyes if she wants to. He isn’t totally cruel and heartless.

Just when you think an anti-choice law can’t possibly get any worse, our evangelical Christian legislators find a way. Brad Zaun, at least, will stop at nothing to force more women to give birth to unwanted children against their will. 

The GOP controls both houses of the state legislature and the governor so the odds are good that this will pass. But they do sometimes listen of enough people call and complain. 

Please contact your state senators and representatives and tell them to oppose this bill. Senator Zaun lives in District 20. I will include his contact info below.

By Robert Cook

Activism Chair, Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers



HF 2273: Freedom of Conscience for Those Who Have No Conscience.

Religious freedom of conscience bills are popping up across the country as conservative legislators look to November 3rd and realize their days in office might be numbered. These Project Blitz inspired bills all seek to protect Christian evangelicals from the consequences of violating civil rights and tax laws that apply equally to everyone else. They are like knock-off replacement consciences for people who have tithed their own consciences to the local prosperity gospel preacher.

House File 2273, the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” is unusual only in its breathtaking scope and detail.

It lists specific religious beliefs to be protected, including 1) marriage as between one man and one woman, 2)”male” and “female” determined by anatomy and genetics at birth, and 3) personhood from the moment of conception.

On the basis of those three beliefs, It allows business, individuals, and religious organizations to ignore civil rights laws that everybody else must follow. The bill includes a long list of privileged situations, including any wedding-related services, employment, real estate sales. housing/rental property, adoption/foster care, education, medical care, counseling, fertility, student dress, access to restrooms, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

According to the bill, state employees can promote their religion in the workplace, refuse to issue marriage licenses, refuse to solemnize marriages, and so much more. I am only scratching the surface of the explicit privileges this bill grants Christians.

Contact your legislators and tell them to vote this down. Email them. Call them. Fax them. Write letters to the editor. Light a fire and send smoke signals. Whatever you have to do.

Yeah, I know, I say that a lot — almost every article I write about the state legislature. But this bill is one of the worst we are going to see this entire session. Don’t let this bill pass.

I’m including links to the sponsors contact info below.

By Robert Cook

Activism Chair

Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers

HF 2274: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?

House File 2274, filed by Jeff Shipley (R) from Van Buren County, would create “an act requesting an interim study committee on gender identity, the Iowa civil rights Act of 1965, and suicide by  transgender individuals.”

The study committee shall explore the application of gender identity as a protected class as it relates to prisons, schools, private enterprise, freedom of expression, and other areas of relevance to determine if statutory changes pertaining to the terms “gender”, “gender identity”, “woman”, “sex”, or to other matters under chapter 216 are necessary or advisable.

That sounds good, doesn’t it? It is always refreshing to see our elected officials take an objective, in depth look at legislative issues so that they are better informed about the facts when they write their bills.

The thing is, something about it sounds off to me. I don’t think the author of this bill is being honest about its stated goal. Here is what I know: Jeff Shipley, (R) from Van Buren County, has a history of support for pseudoscience, anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, pro-theocracy, and pro “religious freedom” bills designed to privilege his Christian religion. Last year he sponsored HF 258, a typical RFRA bill; HF 187, a bill to ban fluoride additives in public water supplies, HF 332, a bill promoting alternative medicine, and HF 257, a bill to cut off federal funds to Planned Parenthood and similar organizations.

Could he have had an epiphany over the summer and now loves science? Maybe. Let’s just say his track record for evidence-based legislation does not inspire confidence.

The second paragraph of the bill includes this:

In recognition that each and every human being is afforded dignity and valued as a child of God, the goal of the study committee shall be to engage in rigorous examination and expansive dialogue regarding issues relating to gender identity in order to end the tragedy of suicide by transgender individuals in this state.

So the premise of this bill is faith, not evidence.

Finally, the interim committee would consist of ten members, with six of the ten appointed by the majority party, i.e. Republicans.

I don’t trust Shipley or the GOP House and Senate leaders to conduct to conduct a fair or objective study of gender identity, LGBTQ rights, and transgender suicides. Maybe they will surprise me, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

By Robert Cook

Activism Chair