Iowa Democrat releases advert backing federal funding ban on gender-affirming care for trans people
Getty Images
Democratic US Senate candidate Josh Turek has sparked backlash from LGBTQ+ advocates after releasing a campaign ad calling for an end to taxpayer-funded gender-affirming care, including treatment for transgender adults.
The Iowa state representative released the ad on 24 October, ahead of the November midterm elections. In the video, Turek also reiterates his opposition to transgender women competing in women’s sports, saying: “I’m against taxpayers paying for sex changes too. Anyone tells you any different is lying.”
The proposal has drawn particular concern because it appears to extend beyond restrictions on care for transgender minors, potentially affecting access to gender-affirming healthcare for adults as well.
What would Turek’s proposal mean for trans healthcare?
Turek opens the advert by discussing his experiences of being bullied as a child because of his disability.
“As a kid in a wheelchair, I faced my share of bullying. It’s why I believe that no Iowan should face discrimination,” he says.
However, he subsequently pivots to transgender people, arguing that rules are necessary in sport and opposing the use of taxpayer money for gender-affirming care.
“It’s why I oppose males competing in female sports, something that is already illegal in Iowa,” he says, before adding that he is “against taxpayers paying for sex changes too”.
The advert concludes with Turek calling for an end to what he describes as “the nonsense from both extremes” and a renewed focus on lowering costs for Iowans. It briefly shows Democratic congresswoman Becca Balint, who is first woman and first out LGBTQ+ person to represent Vermont in the US House of Representatives, questioning Attorney General Pam Bondi about survivors of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Turek’s proposal has been compared to a so-called “transgender Hyde Amendment”, a policy that would broadly restrict federal funding for gender-affirming care much like the historic Hyde Amendment, the legislative provision first enacted in 1976 that blocks the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services with certain exceptions.
Erin In The Morning via Substack points out that such a restriction could affect access to treatment through programmes and institutions including Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Affairs healthcare, federally subsidised Affordable Care Act insurance plans and federal hospitals. It could also affect funding for research into gender-affirming healthcare.
The consequences would depend on the precise scope of any legislation and how it was implemented. However, restricting federal funding could make treatment unaffordable or inaccessible for some transgender people who rely on publicly supported healthcare.
The proposal is also broader than restrictions that specifically target transgender young people, as Turek’s campaign ad does not limit its opposition to minors.
Transgender advocates condemn the advert
The ad has prompted criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates, including Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, an organisation that supports pro-transgender candidates.
“Turek’s stance is cruel, electorally misguided, and out of step with his own party,” Hack said.
He added that Democrats and LGBTQ+ organisations needed to speak out against the proposal to maintain the trust of transgender voters.
Turek’s campaign is part of a wider trend of Democratic candidates in competitive races adopting more restrictive positions on transgender rights. A Reuters report published earlier this month found that Democrats in closely contested Midwestern races were pursuing different approaches to transgender issues, with some embracing more conservative messaging.
In Iowa, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Rob Sand has opposed transgender girls competing in girls’ sports, while congressional candidate Sarah Trone Garriott has campaigned against allowing what she describes as men in women’s locker rooms.
Other Democratic candidates have taken a different approach, declining to support restrictions on transgender people despite political pressure over the issue.
