Cahill

On Tuesday, Representative Ruth Ann Gaines, a 42-year teacher at East High School in Des Moines, moderated a forum featuring five current students from East. It was held on the one-year anniversary of the shooting outside the school that killed one student and injured two others.

The students shared their feelings, their needs for additional mental health services, their desire to get guns out of the hands of students and continued connection with those in the community. They were very honest and courageous.

On Wednesday, the House debated a bill prohibiting gender affirming care for any child under 18 in Iowa. The bill manager stated that this was a “public health” issue that puts children on a path of lifelong struggles.

If the majority party is so concerned about the public health issues of Iowa youth, why haven’t we debated or passed any legislation on getting guns out of the hands of students as the East High School students advocated? Why haven’t we funded additional services for mental health for the youth of Iowa. Why are we focusing on a small group of youth who are trying to live their best lives?

This past week in the Iowa Legislature was “unofficially” education and gender week. I spoke out on the floor against many of these bills that prevent instruction in any sexual orientation or gender identity in grades K-6, banning books in school libraries, and preventing any gender affirming care to children under 18.

Other bills that I opposed were bills that disband the current structure of the Board of Educational Examiners, the licensure agency of educators, and replaces a majority of the board with parents; allowing public librarians, who are not licensed teachers, to be hired as a librarian in our school; reducing Fine Arts and World Language requirements for graduation and many other items that are harmful to our schools and to our children.

All means all! Early in the legislative session the majority party rushed through a bill to allow for state funds to be directed to families in the form of vouchers so parents could have a choice in their child’s education. The Governor signed the bill and it is now Iowa Law. “Parental Choice” was the battle cry!

I support parent choice, but that has to be for all things, not just the things the majority party agrees with. If you have parental rights and parental choice to decide where your child should attend school, then I should have the same choice.

If you make a parental choice of what is appropriate for your child to read at school, then I have the same parental rights and parental choice to decide what my child will read. Following that same line of thinking, I should have the parental choice and parental rights to work with my child and their medical team to decide what medical treatments are best for them.

You can’t have it both ways! You cannot support parental choice only for the things you agree with!

I will continue to fight for the rights of all: Those who are marginalized, those who need our support, those who are like us, those who are very different. We can not advocate parental choice for only certain items. You can decide what your child will have access to at the school library, but you cannot decide what I feel is appropriate for my child!

I held a Listening Post Saturday from 10-11 a.m. at the Pitchfork Primitives and Fodder, 203 S. Main St. (Highway 14) in Laurel. The meeting was informal and open to the public. If you were unable to attend, please contact me at sue.cahill@legis.iowa.gov.

————

Sue Cahill, a Democrat from Marshalltown, represents District 52 in the Iowa House.