Meeting Public Comments

Subcommittee meeting and times are as follows:

Attendance at subcommittee meetings by lobbyists and the public is via zoom or in-person. See agenda for zoom details. Only authenticated users are permitted access.

SF 2119

A bill for an act relating to obscenity exemptions for public libraries and educational institutions.

Agenda

Subcommittee members: Evans-CH, Pike, Quirmbach

Date: Monday, February 16, 2026

Time: 12:00 PM - 12:30 PM

Location: Senate Lounge

Comments Submitted:

The purpose of comments is to provide information to members of the subcommittee.

Names and comments are public records. Remaining information is considered a confidential record.

02-11-2026

Elizabeth Estling

Vote noLibraries do not contain obscene material this bill simply opens the door for anyone to claim anything they do not like to be obscene and then sue. Do we throw away baby sitters club because someone doesn't like 13 year olds kissing? What about any and all science books? I guess no one in college needs to learn about the human body? This is just ridiculous and a waste of time and money.

02-12-2026

Elsabeth Hepworth

VOTE NO ON SF 2119 and preserve the same commonsense protections used by 44 other states. Trust Iowa's educators and librarians to curate highquality, ageappropriate resources. Obscene material is already illegal under Iowa law, making this bill redundant and at risk for the same costly federal injunction as SF 496.

02-12-2026

Mackenzie Ellis

Vote no on SF 2119. Please stop using this exhausted save the children rationale to restrict and control one of the few community resources that are free for community members. This is unnecessary and Id appreciate it if yall would spend time trying to solve actual problems instead of creating them.

02-12-2026

Jessica Link

Vote NO on SF 2119. Libraries do not have obscene materials. The materials in libraries reflect the communities they serve. This means you will always find something in the library you disagree with since you wont agree with everyone in the community. However, that doesnt make it obscene. This is unnecessary and will harm libraries, communities, and library users out of unfounded fears.

02-12-2026

Andy Donovan

Vote No on SF 2119. This is a bad policy for at least two important reasons. One, because the term "obscene" is utterly ambiguousthe 'Miller test' has not withstood serious scrutiny as legislationand so merely provides 'cover' or 'license' for political attack (from 'both' sides). Repealing exemptions will not 'protect children' but rather lead to costly (to us taxpayers) legal quagmires.Two, this is bad policy because library and school professionals have already developed acquisition guidelines and rules of appeal that regulate content. Moreover, these issues are at the heart of professional ethics classes required by all library and information science programs across the world. I know this because I have an MLIS and have worked in academic and public libraries. This bill amounts to a burdensome 'micromanagement' of a class of professionals already concerned with the public interest. In short, this bill is vague and superfluous, and needs to be quashed.

02-12-2026

Jane Robinette

Vote no on SF2119, a dangerous piece of legislation that would repeal the exemption for public libraries and educational institutions from obscenity law. Public libraries serve the whole community, and librarians know their community. If parents are concerned about certain materials for their children, they can make that decision for their children. But they should not have the ability to make that decision for all the rest of the community, and to tie up library time and resources with objections. Repealing the exemption would leave libraries and schools open to censorship and malicious oversight. Librarians are professionals and they know how to do their jobs. Please let them continue to do their work without fear or censorship.

02-12-2026

Hannah Garry

Please vote NO on SF 2119, nothing in our libraries meets the legal definition of obscenity these exemptions protect libraries (and ultimately tax payers) from frivolous lawsuits by organizations that clutch their pearls about completely appropriate content, please do not remove them.

02-12-2026

Carl Homstad

Please vote no on SF 2119. The libraries in Iowa do an excellent job of providing a variety of materials to all sorts of people. They are aware of what is appropriate for whom and don't need to be held criminally responsible for making the mistake of not seeing things exactly like the radically conservative members of society. You should work on real problems like air and water quality instead of stopping problems that don't exist.

02-12-2026

Robert Vrtis

Vote no on SF 2119 this is unnecessary legislation. Removing protections from libraries only to open them to frivolous lawsuits is simply bad policy, not to mention potentially very costly. Libraries are a public good, worth protecting.

02-12-2026

Hayley Jackson

I strongly oppose this bill. Libraries are already prevented from purchasing and distributing pornographic material. This bill would open up libraries to frivolous lawsuits from organizations or individuals who personally find certain materials objectionable but are not pornography as defined by law. These lawsuits would be paid for by the taxpayer.

02-13-2026

Mary McDonald

Vote NO on this bill. Another solution looking for a problem. This is not addressing anything that is currently happening. The "issue" here is not a threat to Iowans. Want to protect kids? Let's made sure they have food and housing. Pay their parents a living wage so they aren't making impossible decisions like choosing healthcare or food. Try working on legislation that actually improves Iowans' lives and out my tax dollars where our shared values are.

02-13-2026

Sophia Nall

Vote NO on SF 2119. I dont want random individuals with political agendas dictating what librarians can and cannot purchase for their libraries. The overreach is astounding. Im begging lawmakers to do something that would genuinely improve lives instead of wasting time attacking, restricting, and intimidating libraries.

02-13-2026

Sophia Nall

02-13-2026

Julianne Couch

Vote NO on SF 2119. This is just another bill that attempts tricks people into being scared. It encourages people to willingly let go of their rights, and of their common sense. Fortunately, most people in Iowa know how to read.

02-13-2026

Annette Butikofer

Please vote NO!Libraries are not in the business of promoting materials that may be perceived as obscene. Something that one person has an objection to others may not. I, myself find that an article, with pictures, of ear wax obscene and repulsive so I didn't finish reading it. Plus, libraries do not restrict knowledge, so if a person does not want their child to have certain knowledge there is an easy fix. Talk with your child and accompany your child at the library.Legislation is not needed for this!

02-13-2026

Shannon Horton

Please vote NO on this bill. This is not an issue that needs your attention. We have more important issues to address as a state! Public and school libraries do not have obscene materials on their shelves so this bill is a waste of time.

02-13-2026

David Faldet

Please vote NO on SF2119. Do not risk taxpayer dollars and scant library funding to pay parents who file lawsuits against a library for not doing the job they the children's parents should be doing. This means supervising their children and staying engaged with their children's reading. A handful of alarmists who want to keep their, and their children's, heads in the sand should not be allowed to bankrupt the library of a whole community.

02-13-2026

Zach Row-Heyveld

Please vote no on SF 2119. The current exemption does not allow public libraries or education institutions to distribute obscene materials as defined by Iowa law, it simply prevents frivolous lawsuits from people and organizations who might object to the content of certain materials. Simply declaring something is obscene does not mean that material meets the definition of obscenity laid out in Iowa code. Passing this legislation will result in taxpayers footing the bill for costly and pointless lawsuits brought in bad faith by bad actors.

02-13-2026

Eleanor Ball

Vote NO on SF 2119. Libraries and other public institutions could face lawsuits and legal risks if exemptions to obscenity laws are challenged, requiring new and higher levels of liability insurance for library workers and boards. Some insurance companies may even decline to cover libraries due to this incredibly high risk, significantly increasing the cost to the state.

02-13-2026

Lilly Jensen

Vote no on this bill. There are two important facts to consider: "Obscenity" is a statedefined term. No materials held in public libraries meet the definition of obscenity. Additionally, the current exemption for libraries doesnt permit public libraries to purchase or distribute obscene materials like hard or softcore pornography, it just shields cities and libraries from frivolous lawsuits brought by people or organizations who object to the content of certain materials. This bill would remove that protection and potentially expose libraries and cities (and ultimately the taxpayers who fund them) to costly and unending legal fees.

02-13-2026

Ellen Wilke

This bill is unnecessary and a misguided use of scarce resources that fund our public institutions. For some students who lack money to buy materials needed for their education, using the library is a help for them. Further, this bill and others of similar ilk proposed in both the House and the Senate continue to impose the will of the minority on the majority and to shift responsibility FROM the parents raising THEIR children to libraries, schools, teachers. If parents want to shield their children from what they perceive as the "big bad world", in this case, the public library, then THEY should do go with their kid to the library and supervise. Leave the rest of us who trust their children and in their upbringing alone.

02-13-2026

Jodie Morin

SF2119 is a solution looking for a problem. School and public libraries do not make obscene material available to children. If there is material that some people find objectionable, it is certainly their right to shield their own children from it, but you should let each family make the decision about what is right for their families without government overreach. I urge you to preserve freedom and vote NO.

02-13-2026

Pamela Torresdal

Vote NO on this bill. Nothing in public libraries meets the obscenity definitions in state law. However, this bill would remove the current obscenity exemptions for public libraries and educational institutions. These exemptions do not allow libraries to distribute obscene materials and are needed to protect libraries from frivolous lawsuits brought by people or groups who object to certain library materials. This bill would have a very adverse impact on public libraries!

02-13-2026

Lisa Petrie

Vote NO on this bill. Iowans LOVE their public libraries, and are 8th per capita in number of registered library card holders. Clearly, an overwhelming majority of Iowans approve of what our library professionals are doing, and have no issue letting our kids enter these buildings. You're wasting our time! We want clean water, affordable health care, and adequately funded public schools. We want rural health care centers, universal PreK, and freedom to make choices about who we love and how we live our lives. We don't want a nanny state! Get back to your small government/local control roots, and lay off our libraries!

02-13-2026

Jillian Aschliman

Vote NO on SF2119! Repealing obscenity code would make libraries and schools more vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits and would likely increase insurance costs for these organizations as well. With shrinking city and school budgets, why would our lawmakers pass legislation that would put farther financial burden on these institutions?

02-13-2026

Genevieve "Gigi" Nelson [Alta Community Library]

Dear Lynn,I am really surprised to see you spearheading this committee. Libraries are the last uncensored community resource of accumulated, REAL human thoughts NOT Artificial Intelligence. Librarians are not boogie men. Libraries are safe places for people of all ages to gather, to read, research and discover. The school version of this kind of bill is not working either. So, your committee is just pushing the same idea over to public libraries. Parents are responsible for their kids, supervising them in the library. There are policies in place already about this. It is offensive to say that parents can't supervise their children and book selections. Making librarians liable is creating a boogie man presence of worthy public servants. You are knowingly judgmental about a community resource you are not using yourself. DON'T PASS THIS BILL. IT is a waste of time, money and contributes to the dumbing down of Americans. GN

02-13-2026

Sheila Altman

This bill is not necessary. Iowa libraries and schools are not currently sharing obscene materials with minors. Under Iowa law, materials are deemed obscene if an average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find them patently offensive and if the materials, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, scientific, political, or artistic value. However, if this bill advances, library staff or teachers could face criminal charges if a local prosecutor believes a book to be obscene. It could also lead to lawsuits by parents, guardians, or former minors who allege a librarian or teacher knowingly exposed a minor to obscene materials. How about focusing on actually funding our schools so that they can actually have a functioning library and a top notch staff of teachers? We used to be top in the nation on education when I was growing up. What is going on with our representatives that they think they need to dumb down our citizens? Stop focusing on ridiculous issues

02-13-2026

Beth Donohue

Vote NO!. Libraries and schools are not distributing harmful materials to minors; can we just stop with this false narrative and focus on the actual problems this state is facing? The relentless attacks on libraries and schools has got to stop. Restricting materials, scientific facts, and information and saddling public servants and communities with frivolous lawsuits because someone might be offended is the last thing our legislature should be doing.

02-13-2026

Carole Daughton

Please vote NO on this bill. It is a piece of ridiculous legislation. Please leave our libraries alone. I feel Iowa government wants us to live in a world that doesn't exist.n No wonder we are bottom of almost every poll for reasons to move here.

02-13-2026

John Lepse [Home]

First they went after public schools. Then they went after school libraries. Now they're going after public libraries. What's next? Bookstores? It's long past time for these culture wars to end and to work on the things that matter for all Iowans, not just the far right.

02-13-2026

Jenny Werner

Leave our community public library systems alone!! I trust librarians and library boards to make the right decisions. I do not trust politicians to dictate what they consider obscene or inappropriate materials. City councils entrust the library management to the board members of their choosing. They do not have time or resources to devote to this. Why change what has worked well for the history of our free and open libraries??

02-13-2026

Billie McKeag

Please vote NO on this bill! With the constant lack of funding for public schools, public libraries are a source for students in rural communities to get resources they might need. Public libraries do NOT provide inappropriate material to underage children. VOTE NO!!! Leave libraries alone, and fund PUBLIC SCHOOLS, uneducated isnt the way to go through life.

02-13-2026

Libby Slappey

SF2119 is yet another example of the Iowa Legislature diverting attention from critical issues like water quality, cancer rates, and the state's shrinking population. Stop attacking public institutions like our schools and our libraries. DO YOUR JOB.

02-13-2026

R. Lee Phillips [Guardians of Pella]

Please pass SF2119. In this modern day and age of Jeffery Epstein and the sexual exploitation of children, we cannot trust educators or librarians to do the right thing. That ship has sailed. There are too many reprobates working the system that put children at risk. What we can do is repeal Section 728.7 as a loophole pedophiles exploit to access children and bring violators under the same penalties of the law as any other individual or business would be charged with. This action is not about violating free speech, censorship, or attacking LGBTQ rights. This action is a necessary step in protecting the rights of innocent children from reprobates tempted to intellectually molest their impressionable minds with harmful obscene material. Pass SF2119.

02-13-2026

Krystle Schoon

02-14-2026

Tricia SEMPLE

Vote no! Libraries are not centers of obscenity. Libraries are essential institutions in our communities,championing education, freedom, and inquiry. The mission of the library is to provide access to a wide range of ideas and experiences while upholding professional and ethical standards. To label libraries and the staff who work there as purveyors of obscenity is to misunderstand both the role of libraries and the purpose of intellectual freedom in a democratic society.

02-14-2026

Amber McNamara

Please do not pass this bill. This would put an unnecessary burden on public libraries and educators, and for no good reason. Libraries are not providing obscene materials, and this would create a dangerous opportunity for lawsuits and litigation. Public libraries are open and welcome to all people, of all ages, and with all interests and reading levels. Leave control with parents and caregivers, and allow the experts at the library to be the helpers. Parents should be reviewing what their minor children are reading, and deciding if they feel it's appropriate. That is NOT the job of the government. It is also not the job of one parent to tell the rest of the community what they can or cannot read. Please vote no. Leave libraries alone.

02-14-2026

Sheri Carter

VOTE NO on HB2119 This is a waste of time and would be costly and burdensome to schools and libraries. The legislature should be concerning themselves with real issues that Iowans face and not manufacturing fake outrage for things that arent actually a problem.

02-14-2026

Bridget Castelluccio

Vote NO on this bill. Libraries are not providing obscene material to children. Children and families need access to free reading materials from the public libraries if we want to create a community of readers in this state. This bill is completely unnecessary to make into a law.

02-14-2026

Brittany Jacobs

Vote NO on SF2119. By removing the exemption for our 544 public libraries and hundreds of school systems you will increase liability of lawsuits, driving up insurance rates and causing unnecessary and outrageous spending of tax dollars. Tax dollars to pay for the county attorney to bring lawsuits, tax dollars to pay for the city attorney to defend librarians, all to no avail since there is nothing legally obscene in any of our schools or libraries. Libraries and schools care deeply about our children, and this bill is a direct insult to them and the incredibly hard work that they do day in and day out educating, protecting, and enriching our communities. Do not mandate wasteful and irresponsible use of tax dollars do not support this bill.

02-14-2026

Rebekah Hosford

Vote NO on HF2309. Im so tired of the attacks on libraries. The library is a welcoming place for alla place of learning and community. The books in libraries have literary, scientific, or artistic merit. Librarians, many of whom have Masters Degrees, select materials for the library based off of professional reviews, and the books are placed in the library based off of the publishers and reviewers recommended ages. It is then up to the parent to monitor what their child is reading. I cant even fathom the logistical nightmare this legislation could bring to libraries. It could ruin small libraries that only have one room. What would the financial cost be to make the changes to the libraries that do have the space?And adding criminal liability?! Ridiculous. Let parents parent, and stop casting shade on libraries.

02-14-2026

Jean Kuehl

Vote NO on SF 2119. This is unnecessary. I believe in local control and library boards are in place to oversee libraries. If a parent has a concern, thats where they need to direct it. I see this a a solution in search of a problem. I think there are vastly more important issues facing Iowans that deserve your attention.

02-14-2026

Andrea Beckendorf

Please vote NO. This bill will unnecessarily curtail the services that public libraries provide to their constituents and would place an undue burden on cities to enforce this law. In some cases, this could mean closure of small, rural libraries that operate in a single space, and would certainly mean that minors would no longer have access to library materials. What will those communities do without their libraries? Iowa libraries should serve EVERYONE, and everyone has a right to read. Iowans strongly believe in the freedom to read and are not in favor of censorship of materials. In the past when I have offered comment or emailed legislators, I have urged them to please talk to actual librarians who do this work. I do not think the people's assumptions about what is happening with materials accurately reflects the work of librarians across the state.

02-14-2026

Charity Tyler

Vote NO on this bill. Iowa libraries and educational institutions do not own or provide access to obscene materials. This will open doors to frivolous lawsuits and cost municipalities valuable dollars needed to serve their residents. Vote no to 2119!

02-14-2026

Amy Bachman

Vote NO. This bill undermines the very nature of the public library which is to provide materials for their community that serves them best. Time for parents to be parents and stop blaming public servants when children are children.

02-14-2026

Jennifer Kirkman

In opposition. Libraries are not making obscene materials available to minors. Local library boards are fully capable of overseeing their operations in this regard. Legislative overreach is not necessary.Please start focusing on issues that require attention.

02-14-2026

Vondale Tonelli-Dodds

Libraries bring many things to the patrons who visit. Censorship should not be one of those things. Many of the books that would be censored are classics, some required reading during my school days. The librarians have enough to do besides playing judge as to what might be acceptable to which person. Let parents, parent and make those decisions in the home. If we don't want the government telling us what to do,how do you justice taking away those decision making abilities from the parents. If you insist on the removal for having obscene & violent content you will need to remove is the bible first.

02-14-2026

Abigail Sitzmann

Vote no! There is no need to repeal this exemption. Librarians and educators do not supply obscenity, but repealing this exemption create more work for everyone whenever someone simply takes offense to educational content in these institutions. It would cost more money in insurance. And, as many have mentioned, even suggesting this legislation wastes time that could be better spent on actions that actually improve quality of life for Iowans.

02-14-2026

Kerry Vande Kieft

I oppose this bill and encourage my legislators to vote no. Its an unnecessary bill that would expose public libraries to frivolous lawsuits and higher insurance costs. Libraries already have collection guidelines and appeal procedures.

02-14-2026

Tara Rechkemmer

Con. Vote no on SF 2119. This is unnecessary and takes away important protections not only for professionals, but is unconstitutional. Regulations are already in place in libraries and have worked to allow the public to go through a process to reconsider library materials. Allow parents to choose what is right to their child or themselves to read.

02-14-2026

Janet Hollis

Vote No on SF2119. Public libraries are not allowing children to check out obscene materials. It is not the states job to police what our children are reading; it is a parents job to parent their children. Whatever happened to allowing parents to make decisions that are in the best interests of their children, or does that only apply when school choice is involved?

02-14-2026

Barbara Martens

Vote NO on this. It is draconian to go after library employees for something that is not happening and to threaten them with another person's opinion of what is obscene....I mean many see books such as "The Lod of the Rings" and the History of the KKK as obscene. Ridiculous interpretation. LEAVE THE LIBRARIES ALONE.

02-14-2026

Claire Matthews

Opposed. Vote No to this unnecessary legislation. It is vague and will tie up tax payer money on lawsuits under highly subjective reasoning and politicized definitions that will punish libraries for collecting classical literature.

02-14-2026

Jennifer Proctor

No!As a mom, Iowan, and educator, I value the librarians, teachers, and parents to determine what children should read. In our digital world, children should be spending more time with their nose in a book!! Whenever my childrens teachers start a new unit I receive an email with the book choices and resources to research the options as well as an opportunity to choose an alternative.State legislators should support local control and promote literacy!

02-14-2026

Stacy Volmer

I strongly oppose Senate File 2119. Repealing Iowa Code 728.7 would strip public libraries and schools of longstanding protections that allow educators and librarians to provide ageappropriate, educational materials without fear of criminal prosecution. This bill invites censorship, politicizes literature, and threatens access to books with serious literary, scientific, artistic, and historical value.Our librarians and teachers are trained professionalsnot criminals. Eliminating this exemption will chill free inquiry, undermine education, and erode parents ability to decide what is appropriate for their own children. Iowa should support libraries and schools, not intimidate them. Vote NO on SF 2119.

02-14-2026

Diane McFadden

Vote no on this bill. Libraries are based on no censorship. Parents should parent. Allowing law suits will cost Libraries, their city and libraians. We don't need frivolous lawsuits. We dont need to make a library unwelcoming to our community. A book that may offend one may be the one someone else is looking for. Just like banning books, if you don't like it put it back on the shelf and look for something else. No one is forcing anyone to read anything. Vote no!! Please!

02-14-2026

Martha McClurg

I vehemently oppose SF 2119 and request the subcommittee to not approve this bill. This bill sets a dangerous precedent for personal opinion to determine what materials are appropriate, which is highly subjective. Librarians and educators provide information and learning, not obscene materials, to minors. Disallowing these professionals to do their job based on the personal opinions of others will negatively impact children rather than protect them.

02-14-2026

Bobbi Marlow

Please vote NO on this bill! Iowa libraries do an amazing job now. There is no way library staff can know what it is in every book. Small rural libraries are often one large room for everyone. It would be detrimental for them. As a library director, many people will have to quit versus opening themselves to a lawsuit. The people working at libraries care about their kids. I really foresee many small libraries will have to close. It is a trickle down system. Speaking for our kids, the library is the only place in town to go aside from a park when it warms up. But again, please vote NO. This would be a devastating bill to go through.

02-14-2026

Denise Pudil

Please oppose SF2119, a concerning bill that would remove the exemption protecting public libraries and educational institutions under obscenity law. Libraries serve the entire community, and librarians are trained to understand and meet those needs. While parents can guide what is appropriate for their own children, they should not be able to decide access for everyone or consume library resources with repeated objections. Removing this exemption would leave libraries and schools more vulnerable to censorship and undue oversight. Librarians are professionals who should be trusted to do their work without fear of censorship.

02-14-2026

Jennifer Delperdang

VOTE NO on this bill. Even Google knows why censorship is bad! In case you dont, let me share this: Censorship is detrimental to society because it stifles critical thinking, suppresses diverse perspectives, and undermines democratic principles by restricting the free exchange of ideas. By limiting access to information, it creates echo chambers, fosters social division, and allows false narratives to be presented as truth, ultimately hindering individual growth and societal progress. Iowans are capable of deciding for themselves what to read and what to think. We dont need the STATE to do this for us.

02-14-2026

Julie Alexander

Vote NO on bill SF2119. This bill is unnecessary and places our librarians, directors and boards at unnecessary risk of prosecution. Our librarians are careful with their circulation collections and have our children's best interest in mind when working with them.

02-14-2026

Kathryn Fink

Please vote NO on SF2119. Removing the obscenity exemption (which is not a blanket exemption, but only for educational purposes) for public libraries could open them up to lawsuits and legal risks and cause their liability insurance to go up exponentially. As budgets for libraries are getting tighter, having to use more of their funding for insurance purposes will affect how libraries can actually serve their communities.

02-14-2026

Anne Tews

Vote NO on this bill. We do NOT provide "obscene" materials to minors! Many of us have MLIS degrees and/or are well educated to select materials which are not harmful.If you to not wish your child/grandchild to read a book, it's on you to come to the library with your child to discuss their choices with them and tell them you do not want them to read a book because.... (And "because I said so" is NOT a valid reason.)The books in the library are not one size fits all. We do not force patrons to check out books nor do we force them to read the books. We do need to provide materials across a wide spectrum of perspectives because there will be someone who needs a book for any number of reasons ranging from learning about mental health issues to seeing themselves in a book as a positive influence. So many young people are attempting suicide and having books to support them and show that others experience what they experience may help to reduce or eliminate those thoughts.

02-14-2026

Nancy Medema

I strongly oppose this bill, SF2119! Librarians are absolutely NOT pushing obscene materials on library patrons as asserted by the only comment requesting passage. At this point there are over 100 comments urging you to not pass the bill and only one in favor. Obviously your constituents value their public libraries and understand the importance of them in their communities. This bill will endanger libraries across Iowa and very possibly cause many to close, especially in small, rural communities, whose schools have already closed due to consolidation. This is an issue that will be remembered at the polls. Please listen to your constituents.

02-14-2026

Roslin Thompson

Please vote NO to this bill. Librarians are trained professionals who review and choose materials at many different levels for many different readers. Parents and caregivers should monitor what their children read, not politicians.

02-14-2026

Janene Krug

Vote NO on SF 2119. This bill is unnecessary. Libraries already have a policies addressing collection development and requests for reconsideration of materials. Children's materials are carefully currated by trained professionals who follow the policies set forth by a board of trustees who are appointed by the mayor. There are better methods for handling disagreements than making sweeping changes to a system that has worked for decades.

02-15-2026

Megan Klein-Hewett

Vote no on this bill. There are no schools or public libraries providing obscene materials to minors. This bill provides a broad sweep and overgeneralization of obscenity, unnecessary when there is an existing definition of obscenity, and when libraries are not offering obscene materials to begin with. Passage of this bill would cause broad scale censorship in our communities due to fear criminal charges, and unnecessary, expensive, and protracted legal battles.

02-15-2026

Hallie Havard

I urge you to vote NO on SF2119. Our libraries are already following the existing laws and guidance around obscene materials and this additional legislation is not necessary. It will only be harmful and costly to libraries and ultimately the communities they serve.

02-15-2026

Julie Heitland

I strongly urge you to vote no on this bill. Are you going to start controlling what is on the Internet that children have access to 24/7 from their devices? What is on the Internet is far worse that what any school or public library would have in their collections!I was a public school librarian for 28 years with a masters degree in Library Science for Education. I had a selection policy that I had to follow when I purchased materials for the students and staff. This policy was approved by the administration and school board. I read reviews of all materials before they were purchased and only selected the best that met the needs of the district. I did not use taxpayer money to purchase this type of material. I am on the public library board and worked closely with the public library when I was working. I know they did not use their limited budget money to purchase this material. Again, I strongly urge you to vote no on this bill. Thank you for your listening.Julie Heitland

02-15-2026

Renate Bernstein

VOTE NO on SF 2119. Stop wasting time trying to interfere with libraries, librarians, and educators. Libraries are a crucial and invaluable resource for the public.Please actually listen to your constituents and vote NO on this bill. We have so many actual problems to solve, such as cleaning up Iowas water and soil.

02-15-2026

Laura Brunsen

Vote NO to SF2119. It limits free speech and undermines libraries. Libraries are critical institutions especially in small towns like mine. They provide a place for intellectual stimulation, socialization, entertainment and education. Do not pass SF2119 and harm our libraries, our communities and our citizens.

02-15-2026

Mae McDonough

I urge you to vote NO on SF2119. It is vital that libraries can continue to offer their full array of services and resources to our communities. This bill is attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. By definition libraries in Iowa cannot provide obscene materials to patrons. If the concern is that kids are getting their hands on books for adult audiences, that is also not an issue. If you had ever been to a library, you would know that there is always a *childrens* section, which offers ageappropriate books, and kids come to their library with their parents or adults, who help guide them to choose books that are right for them. Iowa is going in the wrong direction is we continue to micromanage libraries and restrict access to books.

02-15-2026

Marthe Houk

This is an unnecessary law. It leaves too much to subjective and abusive enforcement. Iowa libraries and schools are not currently sharing obscene materials with minors. Libraries and librarians are not the enemy in Iowa. As a side note, shame on you for focusing on something like this rather than substantive issues such as improving Iowa's economy and finding solutions to the high cancer rate in this state.

02-15-2026

Teddi Yaeger

Vote no on this bill. Libraries already do enough with ensuring materials are age appropriate. Stop wasting time of these nonissues and spend it on what is actually hurting Iowans and making people want to leave the state, such as no clean water and the secondhighest cancer rates in the entire country.

02-15-2026

Jane Robinette

SF2119 is a dangerous piece of legislation that would repeal the obscenity exemption for public libraries and educational institutions in Iowa. Public libraries serve the whole community, and librarians know their community. They don't share obscene materials with minors. If parents are concerned about certain materials, they can make that decision for their own children. But they should not be able to make that decision for the whole community, and to tie up library time and resources with litigation or prosecution. Repealing the exemption would leave libraries and schools open to censorship and malicious oversight. Librarians are professionals and they know how to do their jobs. Please let them continue to do their work without fear or censorship. Vote no on SF2119.

02-15-2026

Jan Netolicky

No matter how some legislators and a vocal few spin it, the truth is that libraries cannot and do not house pornographic nor obscene materials as defined by Iowa code and librarians are not demons who attempt to push sexually explicit books on children. Why are Republicans attempting to vilify library staff? They are dedicated professionals whose sole mission is to help patrons become informed, entertained, enlightened, and literate citizens. I have commented so many times on this tsunami of proposed legislation against libraries and the communities they serve. Please, listen to the hundreds of voices, your constituents, who have taken the time to make their objections heard. Respectfully, vote NO and SF 2119.

02-15-2026

Tim Weitzel

Vote No on this bill. It's unnecessary because libraries don't share pornography and the attitude of this suggests a willingness to impose government control over all materials, which is censorship with the ultimate goal of controlling individuals.

02-15-2026

Jesse Singerman

Vote no on this bill. Children are not being harmed by libraries in Iowa. No materials held in public libraries meet the definition of obscenity. Libraries cannot purchase or distribute obscene materials. The current law simply shields cities and libraries from frivolous lawsuits brought by people or organizations who object to the content of certain materials. We have seen enough of that to know it is a real problem in our state. This bill would remove the protection from frivolous lawsuits and potentially expose libraries and cities to costly legal fees. Do not do this the result will be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

02-15-2026

Brandon Steinkuehler

Please vote no. I am sick and tired of the "party of less government" inserting themselves more and more into our lives. Let the parents decide what is best for their children. Your bill only hurts our public libraries and our children's ability to use them as a separate resource. I am a republican and absolutely ashamed of our leadership right now.

02-15-2026

J Basye

Vote no on SF2119. Libraries and other public institutions could face lawsuits and legal risks if exemptions to obscenity laws are challenged, requiring new and higher levels of liability insurance for library workers and boards. Many smaller towns will not be able to afford this type of coverage. This will lead to the shuttering of many small Iowa libraries. School and public libraries do not offer obscene materials to children. This legislation is not needed.

02-15-2026

Emma Stoffer

The key piece of identifying an obscene material, as defined by Iowa Code 728.1, is recognizing that it serves no literary, scientific, political, or artistic purpose when examined in its entirety. People who have studied literature, Iowas teachers and librarians, are capable of making these distinctions as they are experts in their fields. I understand that not every adult in Iowa is educated to that degree and find it difficult to think critically about the texts they encounter; perhaps thats why we have specialized professions in the first place. Removing the obscenity exemption leaves libraries, librarians, teachers, and schools open to frivolous lawsuits, despite the fact that no items meeting this definition are on library or school library shelves. Vote no on this legislation.

02-15-2026

Jenny Schiltz

Vote NOparents already have the right to monitor and control their childrens access to library materials whether at school or at the public library, but do not have a right to police what other families access. One persons parental rights cannot supersede other parents rights. The courts have defined obscenity and public institutions adhere to the law. Stop these insulting and radical culture wars. Just stop.

02-15-2026

Anita Christensen [None]

I am opposed to SF2119. I truly would like to know when was the last time you were in a public library? Whenever I stop into my local library, it is bustling with people reading newspapers, checking out books, attending library programs and using computers. Libraries are a wonderful source of information and learning! They are often bright hubs of community in our small towns. Libraries work to provide a variety of materials to all sorts of people. The idea of what is obscene is somewhat subjective to the reader. We should not be putting the librarians in jeopardy of being held criminally responsible for making a mistake. This bill is not needed and will bring harm to a valuable resource and to the patrons in our communities across Iowa.

02-15-2026

Sally Stromseth

The legislators of this state are spending way too much time preying on libraries. Every year, I'm having to defend my public library for serving the public. This bill is ridiculous and a waste of time trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There are so many other choices for legislators to consider in this state that would help Iowans live better lives. Dismantling libraries isn't one of them. Please vote 'no' on SF 2119.

02-15-2026

Julie Moran

VOTE NO on HB2119. This bill is another example of our elected officials wasting tax payer funds to "fix" something that is not broken. Libraries, librarians, and educators are a crucial and invaluable resource for the public.

02-15-2026

Michelle Morey

No. People should be trusted to choose their own reading material and parent their own children. It is the height of hypocrisy for legislators to ban reading material that is not to their own personal tastes. If books do not circulate in libraries, they are withdrawn. Otherwise, the public wants to read them. Let people live their lives in a free society, please.

02-15-2026

Amber McNamara

Please do not pass this bill. This is unnecessary and would cause much harm to libraries in Iowa and to the communities they serve. Libraries are already working to provide age appropriate materials for kids; they are experts in the work! Let them do their job. Let parents provide the oversight, not the government. This would also be costly to implement. Libraries already organize materials by age, but this rule would change the definition and how things are categorized. It would be so challenging to ensure compliance, and the risk for law suits would mean libraries would stop serving children all together. Please do not do this. This is NOT what the people of Iowa want or need.

02-15-2026

Bobbi Newman [NNLM]

I oppose SF 2219. This bill would expose libraries to increased lawsuits and higher insurance costs by removing existing obscenity exemptions, diverting public funds away from services.Existing law already provides appropriate safeguards.

02-15-2026

Allie Koolbeck

Vote no on SF2119. This is an unnecessary bill that attacks vital institutions in our communities libraries. Libraries and other public institutions could face lawsuits and legal risks if exemptions to obscenity laws are challenged, requiring new and higher levels of liability insurance for library workers and boards. No one is sharing obscene materials with minors. Vote no!!

02-15-2026

Emily Johnson

This bill is not necessary. It will surely increase insurance costs and raise new legal costs for the state while doing nothing but continue to make it a less attractive state in which to live and work. Obscenity is not an issue is Iowa schools and libraries, unless of course they are allowing students and patrons access to the news, which is quite obscene as of late.

02-15-2026

VALERIE BILLING

I oppose this bill and urge the subcommittee not to advance it. Libraries and educational institutions need to be places where information is available, not censored. Libraries and schools already have policies that give parents oversight on what their kids see and read. This is censorship. If students cannot find reliable information in libraries and schools, they will look on the internet, where there is a great risk they will expose themselves to misinformation.

02-15-2026

Maria Taylor

I am deeply concerned about several bills advancing this funnel week that would limit rights and weaken protections for Iowans.HSB 664 strips local governments of their longstanding authority to strengthen civil rights protections in their own communities. Local control is an Iowa value, and this bill undermines it.HSB 669 could allow insurers to deny care based on ethical beliefs, putting patients at risk of losing access to needed medical services.SF 220 would legitimize conversion therapy, a practice widely rejected by major medical organizations due to the harm it causes youth.SF 2119 threatens library protections and risks restricting access to educational materials.These bills have real consequences for Iowa families and communities. I urge lawmakers to slow down and prioritize policies that protect the health, rights, and dignity of all Iowans.

02-15-2026

Erin Horst

Public libraries dont have obscene materials. Id much rather have my kids experience the world through books than through the internet. If you are so delicate that you need the government to protect you from a book, you may want to stay home.

02-15-2026

Martha Wolf

A public library has been a part of American history as a place to find answers, gain knowledge, explore the wider world beyond our own neighborhood. In this day and age, it is also where you can find the truth not fake news. We all know the Truth will set Us Free.Leave our libraries alone. They are our safe places. You are placing burdens with rules that just cause more tax burden for the public tax payer.Please vote NO on this bill. Move on to more important issues Economic Affordability, Water Quality, Budget Defecit, Funding Public Education that is higher than Inflation, Civil Rights for Everyone, Public Health Crises and Cancer Rates.

02-15-2026

CHRISTINE SCHLOTFELT

I am opposed to SF2119. This is legislation will put libraries at risk of being sued, which will be very costly. The ultimate aim is to put libraries out of business. I don't believe Iowans want to lose their local libraries, but that is what will happen in communities that don't have the resources to deal with costly lawsuits. I'd like to see our legislators focus on real issues that affect the daily lives of Iowans, rather than going after libraries that reliably serve their constituents.

02-15-2026

Jackie Chow

Vote NO on this terrible bill. If you were truly concerned about children being exposed to obscene material, you would be looking at cell phone and internet use. A 2021 Common Sense Media study found that the average tween and teen spends about 30 minutes per day reading compared to over 8 hours per day on screens. That is 16x or 3000% more time spent on screens than reading a book. In 2026 I would bet that gap has widened. If they stumble upon obscene material, it is more likely to be on their cell phone (or a peer's cellphone) than by checking a book out from the library. I believe in parental responsibility and choice. If you are concerned about what your kids are reading, talk with them about it and don't expect librarians and library workers to carry more accountability than parents.Please use our taxpayer dollars on more important things that help all Iowans and quit attacking educators and librarians. Iowa can do better!

02-15-2026

Pam Gronau

I absolutely support this. Unfortunately, this exemption has allowed our schools and libraries to go unchecked with the material they are providing to our children. These institutions need to be held responsible for what they are providing to minors. Thank you for bringing the bill forward!

02-16-2026

Mandee Shivers

Im writing in support of SF 2119. I believe this bill is about accountability. Right now, public libraries and educational institutions have an exemption in Iowa law that allows materials to be distributed even if they would otherwise meet the legal definition of obscenity. That doesnt make sense to many of us as parents and taxpayers.Public institutions should be held to the same standards as everyone else, especially when it comes to protecting minors. SF 2119 simply removes that special exemption and helps ensure that community standards still matter in spaces funded by the public.This bill isnt about banning books its about making sure that explicit material isnt given a free pass just because its in a government building. I appreciate lawmakers who are willing to take this issue seriously and stand up for Iowa families.Thank you Senators for addressing this issue.

02-16-2026

Chrystal heasley

I am appalled that you would consider my right to teach my children what I choose to be usurped by one or two people and a single government official. This is fascism at it's worst and will only push more people away from our state and continue to stifle our states income and well being

02-16-2026

Brenda Smith

Please pass this COMMON SENSE bill!! Those nay sayers above in the comments are right about one thing only This is legislation that shouldnt have to be spent time on, yet here we are. All because no one uses common sense anymore!! Free speech doesnt mean CHILDREN should have access to pornographic material!

02-16-2026

Lisa Johnson

Vote no! Librarians and educators do not supply obscenity. They care deeply about children. To say otherwise is insulting and a serious accusation that unfairly attacks their integrity. This bill is a direct result of misguided information. There is no obscenity available in these settings. The research used to support the impetus behind this bill is based singularly on visual experiences, not the written word. Applying this to even explicit text fails as cognitive pathways differ, social modeling differs, and psychology differs. Additionally, the educational standards being applied are suited to classroom curriculum based on educational goals. Libraries classification is based on subject matter and accessibility at the reading readiness level. It is ethically problematic to apply one to the other. Doing so collapses their ethical foundations.One is assigned the other voluntary. These are not interchangeable as suggested and intentionally undermines public trust.

02-16-2026

Jennifer Kirkman

Vote no!Our libraries are a critical resource to educate our public and so much more! Libraries are a refuge from the elements, a place to get internet access, a place that helps people fill out job applications and get resources for daily life.Librarians and library boards are fully capable of servicing the public effectively without additional laws aimed at criminalising them. This is ridiculous over reach. Get to work at solving real problems!

02-16-2026

Robert Morey

Please vote no. This is another "solution" in search of a problem. Why demonize libraries (again)? The problem is not that kids are reading "naughty" books; the problem is that many kids are not reading books at all. Reading should be encouraged.

02-16-2026

Rachel McKenny

This bill is unnecessary and punitive, punishing the helpers in communities rather than tackling true societal issues. If our legislators want to truly help protect our children, they should turn their time and attention improving the educational system in our communities with better funding. Parents are already doing the job of talking to children about the books they read, and if they aren't, then they need to do so. Parents can already set limits on child accounts. I don't need the government to do my job. I'd prefer you work on your job: helping us by improving public systems, not penalizing the ones in place.

02-16-2026

Corey Creekmur

Vote no on this fundamentally antiAmerican, antidemocratic, antieducation bill. It is built open an ignorance of how libraries actually function and how librarians actually undertake their roles. It relies upon a sweeping, vague, and unworkable claim of "obscenity" that could be applied to a wide range of material. If passed, it would make libraries targets for random and inconsistent censorship. Iowa was once proud of its educational institutions and libraries: this bill would only insult that history and lower their regard.

02-16-2026

Courtney Collier

Vote yes on SF2119.There should be nowhere in the state of Iowa, including libraries and educational institutions that obscenity is available to or permitted to be shown to minors. With the current revelations of the horrific crimes committed against minor children by the Epstein network, we should be on high alert to prevent these crimes from occurring. Minors who are exposed to obscenity, are much more likely to be trafficked or a victim of a sex crime. In recent years, there has been an increase of Iowa teachers and school staff committing sex crimes against minor students. We must consider that allowing educational institutions and libraries to show obscene materials to students is a way for adults with bad intentions to gain access to and identify vulnerable students for grooming. There is zero reason for obscenity to be available to minors in libraries or educational institutions. When we know better, we do better. Pass this bill.

02-16-2026

Jennifer McMillan

Libraries do not have obscene materials in them. All this will do is tie our local governments up in costly legal battles and make our libraries uninsurable, further raising local costs, which are already strapped due to property tax reform. Librarians are qualified, trained professionals who know how to curate appropriate collections.

02-16-2026

Jill Johnston

VOTE NO! A parent has every right to decide what their child is reading, but no one should have the right to make that determination for my child. Never has a book jumped off a shelf and demanded to be read. Focus on what we need in Iowa, like good water quality, a lower cancer rate, and to make public schools #1 again.

02-16-2026

Elizabeth Riordan

I am opposed to SF2119. Stop wasting our time and our money on these performative bills. This isn't even a real issue, and anyone who actually uses a library knows this. Parents can decide what their kids read, not the government. Now maybe focus on issues that actually impact citizens in Iowa, like cleaning our water. STOP WASTING TIME ON MEANINGLESS BILLS.

02-16-2026

Anne Mangano

Please vote no. To shield institutions that are vulnerable to questions about obscenity, Iowa, in the wisdom of past legislators, included exemptions for academic institutions, museums, and libraries. Otherwise, these agencies could be viewed as legally liable and would be pulled into court book by book, art piece by art piece, for a judge to determine if something is obscene. Libraries do not have pornography or obscene materials in our collections when applying the Miller test. While the titles in our collection will stand up in court, the potential suits are the issue. These proposed changes to the obscenity law will lead to a significant amount of the court's time, wasting taxpayer money, all leading to keeping the books on the shelves. Please visit a public library, see the work we are doing, and you'll know we are acting in good faith and following the law.

02-16-2026

Sally Weyer

I am opposed to this legislation and I urge you to vote against it. I have been a regular library patron since I was a little kid and I am currently volunteering at our local library. This legislation is unnecessary and a huge overreach. Please pay attention to the vast majority of the commenters here.

02-16-2026

Jess Netolicky

Vote NO on this bill. Let parents provide the oversight, not the government. Libraries already organize materials by age, but this rule would change the definition and how things are categorized. It would be so challenging to ensure compliance, and the risk for law suits would mean libraries would stop serving children all together. This is unnecessary and would cause much harm to libraries in Iowa and to the communities they serve. Libraries are already working to provide age appropriate materials for kids; they are experts in the work! Let them do their job. Please do not do cause undue harm to institutions that provide resources for everyone, especially families. This is NOT what the people of Iowa want or need.

02-16-2026

Sam Helmick Helmick

I urge you to vote 'No' on SF 2119. The current exemptions in Code section 728.7 exist specifically to protect the study of serious literary, artistic, and scientific works. Without these protections, educators may feel forced to 'selfcensor' curricularemoving classics by authors like Toni Morrison or William Faulknerout of fear of legal prosecution. We should trust our educators to provide ageappropriate, highvalue materials without the threat of criminal charges.Our educators and librarians are Iowans, professionals, and community members. Please stop vilifying them with poorly contrived bills.

02-16-2026

Debra Walz

Vote no. Free speech covers books. Profanity is a relative term. Libraries are a great community hub. They should put their efforts into providing educational and inspiration programs for all ages. Librarians should not have to monitor books. Many of our classics contain Profanity. Should we rid society of all classics? Please vote no

02-16-2026

Quenby Murphy

Vote no. Iowans deserve to be trusted to make their own decisions regarding library materials and what is right for them and their own families. Parents can set their own limits in the way that they see fit without it infringing on the rights of everyone else being able to choose what they need. Limiting access to reading materials has never been looked back on in history as being on the right side.

02-16-2026

Austin Weary

Please vote yes. The audacity of public employees to push smut and propaganda on impressionable young people in public schools and libraries is absolutely intolerable. Teachers and librarians are not unquestionable saints above public scrutiny and need to be held accountable for materials they choose to place in front of children. Parents across the nation don't want their tax dollars being used to warp and corrupt the minds of their children with racist, sexist, sexualized materials.

02-16-2026

Cynthia Latcham

I am opposed to SF 2119. This bill panders to a few while causing consequences for the majority. True parental control allows for parents to choose their own level of supervision at public libraries and educational institutions rather than creating blanket rules to punish librarians.

02-16-2026

Harry Ehrlich

I support SB2119 for several reasons and primarily that there should not be a blanket exemption for obsenity materials for libraries or education institutions in a changing world including digital and written materials also accessible by minors. This is not about attacking the personnel at libraries or schools, its about organizations allowing prevention of parental guidance for their children while within the spheres of education and library activities. There are ways to provide protections for personnel doing their job in good faith, not allowing sexually explicit materials to be accessible in their facilities.Please vote yes on the bill!

02-16-2026

Sarah Roeske

I am opposed to SF2119. Libraries have been, and have always been, centers for education. All libraries, ours included, already have robust collection policies and that current laws already prevent the distribution of truly "obscene" materials to minors. This is clearly redundant and frivolous fear mongering. Take it upon yourself to enter a library, get a library card, and see for yourself the good your local library does.

02-16-2026

Jessica Montgomerie

Vote No to SF 2119. This is a waste of energy and time. The public library and school partnership is a essential to provide the best possible education to the next generations ESPECIALLY in underresources communities. It is a myth that access to library resources has harmed or could harm children. The fact is in fact the opposite one single library that isn't mired in red tape has a tremendous positive impact on a community of children that they carry into their adult life as a citizens, parents, workforce. A massively positive ripple effect. Taking away the advantage of freely operating libraries and you have a less educated generation that will raise the next less educated generation.

02-16-2026

Matthieu Biger

Joining fellow Iowans in urging you to please vote No!The obscenity here is the completelyunfounded basis that this bill (already deemed at odds in prior sessions) is a solution to a problem that does not exist (and should not, in any case, be legislated at the state level).

02-16-2026

Kelsey Hampton

Vote no on this bill. Libraries are a critical component of a thriving community and environment for children and adults alike. Libraries do not carry obscene content for minors. Attacks on the library harm our community and impair our ability to form strong, educated communities.

02-16-2026

Annette Busbee

This proposed bill is another example of a solution to a problem that does not exist. Who is going to determine what is obscene? The Bible can be deemed obscene in a number of chapters and verses, along with many classic novels. Iowa parents don't need the Iowa legislature to determine what is appropriate for their children to read. Vote no on this proposal.

02-16-2026

Karen Maass

I am opposed to this bill. It will take my hometown rural library down. The library is one building that still stands in my rural hometown, The schools are gone. The grocery store barely exists. The library is often staffed by community volunteers (parents and grandparents). This is unnecessary and would cause much harm to libraries in Iowa and to the communities they serve. Libraries are already working to provide age appropriate materials for kids; they are experts in the work! Let them do their job. Let parents provide the oversight and not the government. This would also be costly to implement. Libraries already organize materials by age, but this rule would change the definition and how things are categorized. It would be challenging to ensure compliance, and the risk for lawsuits rise which the town cannot afford and libraries would close. My hometown library opened up my world and provided me the books I couldn't afford to grow my mind and lead me to my career.

02-16-2026

John Kenyon [Iowa City UNESCO City of Literature]

Please vote "NO" on this bill. This exemption is in place for a good reason, and to remove it is to fundamentally change public libraries and educational institutions for the worse. There are mechanisms in place for residents of a community to communicate with these institutions about their concerns, and procedural remedies to be had through locally selected boards. There is no need for the Legislature to do the work of a parent. If you truly believe in parental rights the basis of so many bills put before the Legislature each year then give parents to right to determine what they want their children to access. As a parent, I want my children to have access to everything in the library. My responsibility is to talk with them about what they have accessed, what they are reading, and what they are learning. This change removes that right, reducing my children's world to that of the children of the most restrictive parent in Iowa.

02-16-2026

Cory Schweigel-Skeers

I implore you, please vote no. Education and access to information is crucial, as are the stewards of this access. This bill removes vital protections in an attempt to solve a problem which does not exist. This will cost money, limit access, and create undue hardships and legal ramifications while failing to provide any actual protection or safety. It is a potentially damaging attempt at virtue signaling, is a waste of time, energy, and money, and is dangerous if allowed to proceed.

02-16-2026

Martha Boysen

Vote NO on this bill. Libraries and schools are not distributing obscene materials to children, and libraries and school systems already have processes for responding to parents and patrons concerns about reading materials. Subjecting them to lawsuits and punishment because one user is offended by a book does nothing but waste taxpayers time and money. Iowans value their libraries, and they value the freedom to make their own decisions about what they and their children read. Enough with the culturewar attacks on libraries.

02-16-2026

Lisa Martincik

Strenuously opposed. This bill has no reason; the current system has functioned admirably for decades. This takes autonomy away from the people of Iowa: teenagers, parents, and everyone else besides. Books are already appropriately categorized and anyone fearing an unaccompanied child will somehow encounter a book they don't want should accompany, and talk with, their child. Do not parent others' children nor impose your religion precepts.If you approve of this bill I presume you also demand restaurants remove all alcohol if they also happen to offer a kids' menu. Or do you simply not let your young children go to restaurants and order alcohol, which is not in any case on the kids' menu? Please recognize the harm of this bill and reject it.

02-16-2026

Jennie Sekanics

Vote NO on bill SF 2119. This bill serves undermines the important work that our public institutions of education (schools, libraries, universities) do for our communities. The only way to stop Iowa's brain drain is to protect and invest in communities of learning.

02-16-2026

Amy Weismann

Opposed. Vote No! Libraries and other public institutions could face lawsuits and legal risks if exemptions to obscenity laws are challenged, requiring new and higher levels of liability insurance for library workers and boards. This will result in significant reduction in staff and services, and likely the closure of some libraries in our state.

02-16-2026

Ruth Kuntz [none]

Vote NO on SF 2119. This bill is not needed and is harmful to a valuable resource in our communities. Libraries already provide ageappropriate materials. Parents and other adults are able to decide appropriate materials for their children and themselves. Librarians and other staff persons cannot be held responsible for materials a few people deem inappropriate. Free access to all information in print, in speech, and in the news is essential to our democracy.

02-16-2026

Riza Falk

Vote NO! The library is one of my childs favorite places, and librarians are some of the most dedicated individuals Ive ever met. Iowa libraries and educational institutions are not sharing obscene materials with minors and this would open them up to unnecessary lawsuits, wasting everyones time and money.

02-16-2026

Chad Berman

I strongly oppose bill SF 2119. Please vote no. A pillar of facism is the restriction of ideas and learning that the ruling party opposes to prevent free thinking and thus dissidence. Its not a coincidence that one of the first actions every totalitarian regime takes is to cut off access to books, research, and other accessible modes of learning and knowing. I remember when we as a country used to fight facism, not foster it. Dont be fooled by the thin veil of supposed decency the supporters of this bill are propagating. Gender/race/etc. affirming stories and experiences are not pornographic; they are vital to our culture and learning. Vote no on this bill that is a waste of our taxpayer money

02-16-2026

Erin Payne-Christiansen

Vote no on this bill. While the bill is couched in language suggesting it protects children, it is unnecessary and unhelpful. It may be helpful for folks to visit local libraries and see the value they provide before choosing to attempt to pass laws that harm them.

02-16-2026

Susan Futrell

Please vote no on SF 2119. This measure is unnecessary, and puts librarians who are public servants providing criitical support to children and youth in our communitiesat risk of capricious and damaging lawsuits that will waste time and money. There are already good protections in place that address these concerns, and this measure crosses the line to censorship. Please vote NO.

02-16-2026

Sharon Moss

Public libraries are needed now more than ever with public school closures because of school vouchers and not enough funding for the public schools that remain. If libraries are shuttered, rural communities will suffer the most no story time, no community gettogethers, no senior citizen activities, and libraries also serve as food banks and provide services for job seekers. The Bible would have to banned under this ridiculous law for its mature and violent content. Dismantling laws that protect children's health and others who care for them exposes communities to epidemics. This state has the second highest cancer rates in the country and polluted water, Can the legislature do something that actually helps Iowans for a change?

02-16-2026

Kim Kietzman

It is illegal to disseminate pornography or obscenity to minors. The existing legislation protects librarians from legal liability for items that may not be acceptable in some households but do not fit the definition of obscene. This loss of exemption means books that are educational in nature may result in legal action. Libraries shouldn't be sued for providing books on puberty, encyclopedias that provide anatomical facts, or for staying out of the way of parents' choice on what is needed and suitable for their families. Protect families' autonomy and libraries by voting no.

02-16-2026

Alyssa Gifford

I am opposed to SF 2119. This is a waste of time and resources that could be used on more important issues. If parents want to weigh in on what their kids are reading. Let them. At home or in working with their child's teacher, like parents have done forever. Just because someone else doesn't want a book in a library or in their child's hands, doesn't mean someone else should be denied access to it. Libraries shouldn't have to risk lawsuits or pay more for insurance just because lazy people don't want to parent their own kids.

02-16-2026

Amanda Sand

Oppose SF 2119. This bill raises serious constitutional and financial concerns for libraries and municipalities. The exemption is not blanket, only for educational purposes and artistic displays. Libraries do not contain obscene content, as determined by the wellestablished Miller Test. Removing this exemption would increase the risk of litigation for municipal libraries and their governing boards. Cities and counties would bear the duty to defend these cases, in addition to costly prosecution costs.

02-16-2026

Laura Michelson

Vote NO on SF 2119. Iowa Code 728.7 is in place to protect Iowa educators and librarians from doing their jobs and supporting learning in this state. Vote no on this and all legislation seeking to attack the right to learn.

02-16-2026

Christopher Edman

As an Iowa resident, community member, and parent, I oppose SF 2119, the passing of which would, as I understand things, deprive my local library of significant resources otherwise available for the fulfillment of its important core mission. I have young children and we frequent our local library regularly, but having spent significant time on site myself and having interacted with the staff and children's programming, I have no present concerns relating to the possibility of my children accessing "obscene" materials at the library. This bill, therefore, effectively diverts library resources to address a concern that is, frankly, not a real concern held by parents like myself.