Meeting Public Comments

J Basye

As a library advocate, I urge you to reject HF274, a bill that would strip vital protections from Iowa libraries and schools, threatening free inquiry, intellectual freedom, and First Amendment rights.HF274 seeks to remove exemptions in Iowa Code 728, exposing libraries, schools, and educators to unnecessary legal and financial risks. These institutions operate under wellestablished obscenity laws, which already ensure that materials lacking educational or cultural value are not protected. This bill would create a chilling effect, leading to selfcensorship and restricting every Iowans right to access information and make their own choices, free from the influence of others.Obscenity is a legal determination made by the courts, not by individuals or community pressure alone. The Miller Test provides a clear legal framework, considering community standards alongside broader constitutional protections. HF274 ignores this precedent, opening the door to costly lawsuits against municipalities, libraries, and schools diverting taxpayer funds away from education and public services to defend against vague and politically motivated claims.Leaving Iowa Code 728 intact ensures that Iowa libraries and schools can continue serving the public without undue interference. We urge you to stand for intellectual freedom, uphold the rights of individuals to seek information, and protect our institutions from unnecessary legal and financial burdens by voting NO on HF274.

Olivia Stoner

As a librarian, mother, and strong believer in Iowas motto, I urge you to reject HF274, a bill that would strip vital protections from Iowa libraries and schools, threatening free inquiry, intellectual freedom, and First Amendment rights.As a student of history, I am appalled by what is currently happening in our country on a national level. It echos the rise of Nazi fascists. This bill is in alignment that horrifying direction. The more information is kept from the people, the easier it is for authoritarians to control their thinking. I hope that you as an elected official are keeping the best interests of the people of you serve at heart. Access to information and freedom of ideas are crucial to continue a healthy democracy.

Yari Rivas

I strongly oppose HF 274 and urge lawmakers to vote "NO" on this harmful bill. Public libraries are vital spaces for education, information, and free access to knowledge for all Iowans, and they play a critical role in our communities. HF 274 threatens the very foundation of these institutions by opening the door to frivolous and costly lawsuits that could force libraries to selfcensor and limit their collections, even when materials are ageappropriate and educational.This bill would enable individuals to challenge books and resources based on personal objections, regardless of whether they meet the legal definition of obscenity. Libraries are already committed to ensuring their materials are suitable for various age groups and educational needs, and these decisions should remain in the hands of parents and children, not be dictated by legal threats.As a parent and as someone who values intellectual freedom, I urge legislators to protect Iowans right to free access to information and education by voting against HF 274. Lets not allow fear and censorship to stifle our communities access to diverse perspectives and knowledge. Libraries should remain places of learning.

Jolynn Hefel

Please reject this bill. This is not a positive change, it is a setback. It does nothing to improve Iowa. Please focus your efforts on more important things.

Jill Weigel

Please reject HF274. As a parent, it is my role to help guide my children with what they read. Depending on the definition of what is appropriate, this legislation could impact materials that may not have even been considered. As an adult, I also want latitude to read whatever I want. Children find far more damaging information through the internet than in the library. I am a regular patron of the library and never have I seen inappropriate materials there. I work as a Forensic Interviewer for children who have had allegations of sexual abuse, and a large number of children have access to inappropriate materials through the internet. Not once has a child mentioned something to me from a book or library resource as causing them trouble or confusion. My role as a parent is to help my children make choices that are right for them personally, and the choices for my children are not the same as those of others' children. They need to have a variety of materials to choose from because all children are not the same. Please do not address issues that are not problems. We have so many issues to address in our state and country, but this is not one of them. Please reject HF274.

Jillian A

I strongly oppose HF274. We already have obscenity laws in Iowa, and this bill is a complete overreach with the goal to restrict free speech and access to information. You are opening the door to wasting taxpayer dollars on unnecessary lawsuits, not to mention the time and energy that could be spent more productively elsewhere. The simple answer is that if someone doesn't like a book DON'T READ IT. If you don't want your child to read specific material BE A PARENT AND TALK TO THEM. Public libraries are supposed to reflect their entire community, so if someone wants to read things that align with specific beliefs and values, ASK THE LIBRARIAN TO HELP YOU FIND THOSE ITEMS IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE IT FOR YOURSELF. It's really that easy, and doesn't require a law like HF274 to make it happen.

Erin Horst

As a parent concerned with government overreach, I'm advocating for you to vote NO on HF274. It is not the government's place to dictate what my children and I can read using our tax supported services. It is incredibly concerning to see this disregard of the First Amendment from a committee with many more important things to do.

Lyndsie Pitzenberger

I strongly oppose HF274. Libraries have a responsibility to curate collections that meet the needs of all community members. Our goal is to provide something for everyone, rather than requiring everything to be for everyone. The selection of materials is a thoughtful process that takes many factors into accountmost importantly, patron requests. Passing this bill would infringe on the right of all Iowans to access materials of their choosing.

Sherry Sines

Please reject HF 274. This bill is an overreach, reactionary and unnecessary. This bill could lead to potential restriction of information to citizens and unnecessary litigation. Iowa librarians are educated professionals. They use their expertise and knowledge of professional processes to select and place materials within library collections. These decisions includes not only their professional knowledge and expertise, but also legal guidance (i.e. the legal test of obscenity defined by the US Supreme Court) to provide the best service to their community. I strongly urge you not to move forward with legislation that would restrict access of information to citizens and would ignore parents and caretakers roles in guiding their children in the selection of materials that are appropriate for them.

Holly Ewing

As a library advocate, I urge you to reject HF274, a bill that would strip vital protections from Iowa libraries and schools, threatening free inquiry, intellectual freedom, and First Amendment rights.HF274 seeks to remove exemptions in Iowa Code 728, exposing libraries, schools, and educators to unnecessary legal and financial risks. These institutions operate under wellestablished obscenity laws, which already ensure that materials lacking educational or cultural value are not protected. This bill would create a chilling effect, leading to selfcensorship and restricting every Iowans right to access information and make their own choices, free from the influence of others.Obscenity is a legal determination made by the courts, not by individuals or community pressure alone. The Miller Test provides a clear legal framework, considering community standards alongside broader constitutional protections. HF274 ignores this precedent, opening the door to costly lawsuits against municipalities, libraries, and schools diverting taxpayer funds away from education and public services to defend against vague and politically motivated claims.Leaving Iowa Code 728 intact ensures that Iowa libraries and schools can continue serving the public without undue interference. We urge you to stand for intellectual freedom, uphold the rights of individuals to seek information, and protect our institutions from unnecessary legal and financial burdens by voting NO on HF274

Victoria Anderson [American Atheists]

February 18, 2025The Honorable Rep. Skyler WheelerChair, House Education Committee1007 E. Grand AvenueDes Moines, Iowa 50319Re: OPPOSE HF 334, Allowing Chaplains in Public Schools Dear Chairperson Wheeler and Members of the House Education Committee:As an Iowa resident and Director of Strategic Communications & Policy Engagement for American Atheists, I write in opposition to HF 334, a bill that would, with minimal requirements, allow chaplains into public schools to serve in roles typically reserved for professionally qualified school counselors. This bill would undermine the religious equality of all Iowa residents by subjecting students of nonsectarian public schools to religious coercion and interfering with parents fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. On behalf of American Atheists members across the state of Iowa, I strongly urge you to reject this unconstitutional bill. American Atheists is a national civil rights organization that works to achieve religious equality for all Americans by protecting what Thomas Jefferson called the wall of separation between government and religion created by the First Amendment. We strive to create an environment where atheists are accepted as members of our nations communities and where bigotry against our community is seen as abhorrent and unacceptable. We promote understanding of atheists through education, outreach, and communitybuilding, and work to end the stigma associated with being an atheist in America. American Atheists believes that no young person should be subject to religious coercion by the government.HF 334 would allow chaplains to serve in support roles for students in public schools in place of or alongside actually qualified school counselors. We recognize there is an ongoing school counselor shortage throughout the country, including in Iowa. However, allowing school chaplains to volunteer in schools is both an inappropriate and inadequate alternative to resolving this crisis.Allowing school chaplains access to public school students violates one of our nations founding principles: Religion and the government should remain in separate spheres to ensure all Americans religious beliefs are respected. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment requires that the government not favor one religion over another or favor religious belief over nonbelief. This constitutional guardrail is especially critical when children are involved, as they are particularly vulnerable to religious coercion within educational settings. Bills such as HF 334 carve out a space for religion within one of the nations and our states most important institutions publicly funded, nonsectarian schools and create an impermissible risk that students religious freedom will be violated. Even if students are not compelled to interact with chaplains against their will, the presence of religious authority figures at school inherently fosters an environment in which religious coercion can flourish. Students may feel pressured by their peers to meet with the chaplain. Even more concerning, they may view the presence of a chaplain as a government endorsement of that chaplains religious beliefs and therefore feel pressure to conform their beliefs to those that their school or state appears to support. Growing up is challenging enough, and schools must be a space of safe expression for all students not just those who adhere to particular favored religious beliefs. Lawmakers supporting this bill must ask themselves whether they would continue to support HF 334 if their child attended a school district where the only source of support was not a qualified counselor but a chaplain of a different faith.HF 334 would also interfere with parents fundamental right to choose how their children are raised by allowing chaplains to proselytize to students under the guise of providing support. This bill does not require parental consent before chaplains interact with students; explicitly prohibit chaplains from using their position as an evangelizing opportunity; or otherwise mandate that chaplains respect the diverse religious backgrounds of the students in Iowas public schools. Instead, the chaplains would have the ability to undermine parents choices by directly influencing students religious beliefs.Public education is the bedrock of our pluralistic democracy, a place where students can go to learn no matter their background, beliefs, or nonbelief. If Iowa parents want their children to receive an education influenced by a particular religious tradition, they may choose to send their children to private school or homeschool them. Chaplains must not, however, be permitted to insert their personal religious beliefs into nonsectarian schools that are required to serve all children.School chaplains are also not qualified to provide the same types of support as school counselors. School counselors play multiple important roles within public schools, and they provide varying forms of support such as academic, professional, mental, and emotional support to help prepare students beyond their postsecondary career. Becoming a school counselor takes significant training. At minimum, school counselors must hold a masters degree in school counseling. In addition, counselors must meet the state certification and licensure standards while fulfilling the continuing education requirements and upholding ethical and professional standards. HF 334 would allow chaplains to serve in place of school counselors despite their lack of qualifications and immunity from professional standards. This threatens to negatively impact student outcomes and needlessly undermines the efforts and extensive training required of counselors.A chaplain's commitment to their particular religion does not qualify them to serve students, each and every one of whom has distinct needs, backgrounds, and experiences that must be met with extensive training and experience. A multistate study showed that comprehensive, datadriven school counseling programs improve a range of student learning and behavioral outcomes. Furthermore, research has shown that studenttoschool counselor ratios that meet the American School Counselor Association recommendation in povertystricken schools have been linked to improved academic outcomes such as increased attendance, fewer disciplinary incidents, and higher graduation rates. Finally, school counselors can effectively assist underachieving students by examining schoolwide data and use the data to host an effective group intervention. Instead of seeking to give chaplains volunteer roles in public schools, the Iowa legislature should work to provide additional funding so that schools can employ school counselors equipped with the professional skills needed to assist students in their academic, vocational, and personal success.Iowas public schools must be safe and supportive learning environments for all students, and lawmakers should prioritize protecting not violating Iowans constitutional right to religious freedom. We strongly urge you to reject this bill. Should you have any questions regarding American Atheists opposition to HF 334, please contact Victoria Anderson, State Policy Counsel, at vandersonatheists.org.Sincerely,Melina CohenDirector of Strategic Communications & Policy EngagementAmerican Atheists

Rick Phillips [PELLA PAC]

When it comes to schools, libraries, and education in general, theres a theme emerging that suggests protecting the innocence of children is denying their rights and harming them. Procuring a generation of children devoid of indoctrination provided by Marxists and atheists will not harm them. In HF 274, many parents support closing a loophole that allows perverse reading material for young minds. But this is resisted claiming book banning and censorship. There are age restrictions on consuming alcohol, to buy tobacco, obtaining a drivers license or entering an enforceable contract. We want age restrictions and protections on minors of what reading material they are exposed to. What is so difficult about understanding this? This is not about banning books or censorship for those of age. Its not about questioning the qualifications of librarians and their job skills. Its only about protecting the minds of minors. Resisting the repeal of Section 728.7 in HF274 can only be interpreted as approval of intellectual child abuse and offering an avenue for perverts to sexualize children. Resisting passage of HSB84 is to retain harmful DEI can only be construed as approval of indoctrination. Again, this is the insidious work of Marxists and atheists. Protecting children from sexual exploitation and indoctrination in schools and libraries is protecting them from the works of the devil. What is wrong with delaying a minor from going down the path of no return in life? Why are there so many that approve of fasttracking minors to the destination of emotional death?

Ben Turner

The state censorship of literary materials is a direct threat to the individual's freedom to research topics for discussion, education, and personal growth. Reading a book does not by any means mean that the reader will adhere to, or agree with, the information therein. State censorship of books and media has been used time and again by regimes like that of Stalin, Mao, and Franco to maintain a population of youths,and then adults, who will fall in line with the ruling party's ideologies and agendas. Regimes like Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, or the CCP use the platform of ending immorality as a mask for wiping away all that disagrees with their political agendas. So please, in the name of Freedom and all that is American, do not restrict the rights of libraries by repelling 728.7. Thank you

Ben Turner

0lease vore NO to HF 274! The state censorship of literary materials is a direct threat to the individual's freedom to research topics for discussion, education, and personal growth. Reading a book does not by any means mean that the reader will adhere to, or agree with, the information therein. State censorship of books and media has been used time and again by regimes like that of Stalin, Mao, and Franco to maintain a population of youths,and then adults, who will fall in line with the ruling party's ideologies and agendas. Regimes like Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, or the CCP use the platform of ending immorality as a mask for wiping away all that disagrees with their political agendas. So please, in the name of Freedom and all that is American, do not restrict the rights of libraries by repealling 728.7. Thank you

Morgan Turner

Please do not pass H 274. Please consider how your favorite book, movie, or holy text would hold up if this was passed, if the person making the decision had a different definition of "obscenity" than you or your group did. As it relates to H 274, please consider that for many, the texts in holy books, including the King James 1611 version of the Holy Bible would be considered obscene in many circumstances. It could be, if this law was passed, that the Bible itself would then become banned in libraries under the laws that you make due to the passages that detail the rape of Lot's daughters by the citizens of Sodom to protect the angels of god (Genesis 19:68), the stoning of disobedient children,(Deuteronomy 21:1821) or the graphic imagery from Jesus' own words about motes in eyes and cutting off of one's offending hands (Matt. 5:2930)? I as a librarian will defend my patron's rights to read any text or scripture that they ask for, regardless of what is in the book itself, due to their rights as Americans. Can you promise to do the same?

Isacc Davis

This bill broadens government beyond its proper authority. The section being repealed already specifies that material given to students will be for an appropriate, educational purpose. The section being repealed limited government authority to what was appropriate to regulate. By repealing a limitation to government authority, you are inappropriately broadening the authority of the government. I OPPOSE INAPPROPRIATE BROADENING OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.

Garrett T

Do not pass this obscene legislation. As a homeschooled graduate from a conservative Christian background, libraries were an important educational tool in my youth and I do not favor a bill that restricts public access to varying viewpoints of information, even materials not aligned with my own views. Iowa taxpayer dollars come from a variety of hardworking households with varied viewpoints to each respective household, and our taxpayer funded libraries need to reflect this reality of ideological variation, as they thus far have been, and not let one group of politically motivated citizens decide what other taxpaying families can no longer access any longer at their public library.

Angela Butler

HF 204 I am writing in support of HF 204. I have been a robotics coach for 13 years and see first had the opportunities Robotics gives to Iowa's students. Allowing Robotics to be a CTSO will create more opportunities for Iowa students to participate in STEM and help create sustainability of Robotics programs in Iowa schools. This bill has no impact to Iowa taxpayers and opens opportunities for our students. Please vote Yes to HF 204.

Elijah Turner

I am against this bill as I feel that it threatens public access to imformation and thus is one step on a slippery slope towards the eradication of our fragile democracy.

Pat Young

Please do NOT vote in HF274. We need to keep censorship out of our libraries. Parents can do that, as they should, if they have any concerns. Censorship is not the answer. Focus on other problems that are far more important, please