Gov. Kim Reynolds isn’t a name you hear a lot in conservative media outside of passing mentions regarding the presidential primary. But while there are no headline-making battles with Disney in Iowa, and the state is very socially conservative, that doesn’t mean she hasn’t put in the work, and that includes getting sexually explicit books out of schools.
In May, Reynolds signed a law that prohibits books in schools that illustrate or describe sex acts. The law also mirrors Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law by banning discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation in classrooms through sixth grade.
For some reason, that is found to be controversial by the press. When pressed by a reporter on Wednesday, Reynolds dropped the hammer.
.@IAGovernor @KimReynoldsIA goes nuclear on the press after the ask ridiculous question about “banned books” in Iowa!
— Beth Mushin (@beth_mushin) October 25, 2023
I love my governor!!! pic.twitter.com/UXUEkDqOA9
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 a grandma, I was a parent. I think moms and grandmas, they want their kids to get a good education. They want them to be able to read. They want them to be able to do math, science, civics, really understand what the history of this country is, good and bad, and we’re not where we need to be. Especially after COVID, and we’re lucky because we kept our kids in school, but we are not where we should be.
By that point in the video, Reynolds had already made her point. How is this even an argument? In fact, it’s the most disconnected argument in politics. On the one hand, you have these snotty reporters writing stories decrying “book bans.” On the other hand, the outlets those reporters work for won’t even show excerpts from the removed books (not being available in a school does not mean it’s banned) because they are too graphic. Can anyone connect those dots?
Reynolds wasn’t done, though. She proceeds to go absolutely nuclear in the second part of her answer.
REYNOLDS: Our kids and our teachers deserve better. They deserve the tools to help these kids succeed, not a d**n distraction on a nasty, pornographic book that should never, ever be in a classroom. Now, if you’re a parent, and you think it’s important, this is good, for your child to have access to that. Okay, go buy the book. We didn’t ban them. Go buy the book, sit down, have a conversation with a child, but let’s not put that on the teachers, and let’s not put that on the schools, and I think it’s pretty clear.
And if they can’t distinguish that, I don’t know, you know, maybe we outta take a look at what they should be dealing with. So it’s just a distraction, and they’re trying, they don’t like and so they’re blowing it out of proportion. It’s simple. The words are clear. Follow the law. Follow the law.
Her final few sentences form the money quote. This isn’t about the law in question being vague or hard to understand. It is not difficult to remove books that contain sex acts or for teachers to not talk to first graders about their sex lives. This is about a set of left-leaning administrators crying foul because they simply don’t like the law.
For whatever reason, and I’ll leave others to speculate on why, they want young children to be shown sexually explicit content while being taught they can “change” their gender. The most forgiving explanation is that this is simply partisan politics, i.e., Reynolds supports it so they need to be against it, regardless of the contradictions they and the press express in their responses.
Iowa is doing the right thing. Parents should not have to worry about their children being exposed to graphic sex acts when they send them to school, and if a parent is deranged enough to want their child exposed to that stuff, they can buy these books themselves. It is not the job of taxpayers or teachers to participate in such. Reynolds is an example of competent conservatism where getting things done takes priority. Maybe we should be giving her a little more credit, even if she’s not as loud as many others.
