Gov. Kim Reynolds’ name isn’t one you hear in conservative media much, except for passing mentions about the presidential primary. While there have been no major headlines about Disney’s actions in Iowa and the state has a very conservative social climate, this doesn’t mean that she hasn’t worked hard. This includes removing sexually explicit reading material from schools.
Reynolds signed into law in May a bill that bans the use of books that depict or illustrate sex crimes. The law is also similar to Florida’s Parental Right in Education Law, which prohibits discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools up until sixth grade.
The press finds this controversial for some reason. Reynolds was pushed by a reporter Wednesday and dropped the hammer.
I love my governor!!! pic.twitter.com/UXUEkDqOA9
— Beth Mushin (@beth_mushin) October 25, 2023
REYNOLDS: I can remember, I don’t know if you can remember, but actually, in an interview I did with WHO13, I read some actual excerpts from the book. It was “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” actually read them, and you all couldn’t even show that portion of the interview without a disclaimer and still didn’t show it because you were uncomfortable, the media was uncomfortable with saying that on TV. But yet, somebody believes that our kids should be subjected to that?
You know I’m an old grandma. I used to be a mother. I believe moms and grandmothers want to see their children get an education. They want their children to be able to read. They want to know math, science, and civics. They also want to understand the good and bad history of our country. We’re fortunate that we kept our children in school after COVID. But we aren’t where we need to be.
Reynolds’ argument was already clear by the time she reached that point. What kind of argument is this? It’s actually the most disjointed argument in politics. You have snotty journalists writing articles decrying ‘book bans.’ The outlets for which these reporters work won’t show any excerpts because the books are too graphic. Does anyone else see the connection?
Reynolds was not done. In the second part, she goes absolutely nuclear.
Reynolds: Both our children and teachers deserve better. They should have the tools they need to help their children succeed. Not a pornographic, vile book that shouldn’t be allowed in any classroom. If you are a parent and think that it is important for your child to be able to access this book, then you should buy it. Go buy the book. We didn’t. Buy the book and sit down with a kid to have a discussion. But let’s put this on the school and teachers. I think that’s pretty clear.
If they don’t understand that, then I don’t think we should bother to look at the real problem. It’s a distraction. They’re trying to ignore it, but they don’t enjoy it, so they blow it out of proportion. It’s simple. It’s simple. Follow the law. Follow the law.
The money quote is her last few sentences. It’s not that the law is vague or difficult to understand. It’s not hard to remove books containing sex acts or to have teachers not speak to first-graders about their sexual lives. It’s about a group of administrators who are left-leaning and complain that the law is unfair.
They want to show sexually explicit material to young children while teaching them that they can “change their gender”. This is a partisan issue, which is the most forgiving. Reynolds is for it, so they must be against it despite the contradictions expressed by them and the media in their responses.
Iowa is doing what’s right. Parents shouldn’t have to worry that their children will be exposed to graphic sexual acts in school. If a parent wants their child to see this stuff, then they can purchase these books. The taxpayers and teachers are not responsible for participating in this. Reynolds is a good example of a conservative who prioritizes getting things done. We should give her more credit even though she is not as vocal as others.