Image 01 Image 03

Iowa Joins List of States Now Enjoying California’s ‘Travel Ban’

Iowa Joins List of States Now Enjoying California’s ‘Travel Ban’

Iowa’s crime? Refusing to fund gender transitions.

California added Iowa to the list of states on its “travel ban” list because of the state’s new prohibition against funding gender-transition surgeries under Medicaid.

The announcement by state Attorney General Xavier Becerra means that as of Oct. 4, California will no longer offer taxpayer-funded trips to Iowa for any public employee or student at a state-run university.

Becerra’s authority came from a 2016 California law signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown that bars state-funded travel to other states that undercut LGBT rights. The blacklist already included Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma and Mississippi.

The focus of all the bans has been related to so-called LGBT discrimination.

In Alabama’s case, it was the passage of a law allowing adoption agencies in the state to follow faith-based policies, including the option to not place children with gay couples.

“California has taken an unambiguous stand against discrimination and government actions that would enable it,” Becerra said when announcing the Iowa ban.

Alabama was added to the travel ban list in 2017, a year after California’s law was enacted prohibiting state-funded travel to states that “void or repeal” protections against discrimination based on “sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.” According to the California law, the travel ban will continue “while any such law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression remains in effect.”

This development may make a very interesting topic of discussion ahead of the Iowa caucus for some of the Democratic candidates.

Citizens from non-listed states are clamoring to be banned.

Given the level of infectious disease, it might be prudent for states to prohibit their employees from coming to California.

The news has been greeted with joy by many Iowans.

If California politicians continue with this inanity, they may virtue-signal us out of statehood.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

, ,


legacyrepublican | September 18, 2019 at 9:12 am

Does that mean that presidential candidate Sen. Harris (D) CA is now banned from travelling in Iowa?

    Um, no. Why would she be? California is not paying for her travel, so it gets no say in the matter.

      Some people (mostly lawyers) have no sense of humor.

      “California is not paying for her travel, so it gets no say in the matter.”

      For now. But give the totalitarians running the People’s Democratic Republic of California an inch etc etc….

      Personally I am just waiting for the day when a future Democrat President and Congress decides that the proles’ interstate travel must be restricted to “necessary” travel. To save the environment and stop white supremacist gun violence, ya know.

    I would imagine she uses taxpayer money as much as she can to stretch her campaign funds. In her case those are Federal funds that California has no say over but could still embarrass her if the MSM chose to.
    MSM attack a D, I knew I couldn’t say that with a straight face.

    If one is a Commiecrat and pandering for votes no where is off limits even the grave yards.

No one should be funding “gender transition surgery” It causes irreversable harm to the patient. Especially bad when the diagnosis is fad / diagnosis “de jure”. Competent mental health experts recognize the dangers and the fad nature of this diagnosis. Unfortunately, left wing / social justice warriors dominate a large batch of this profession.

CaliforniaJimbo | September 18, 2019 at 9:30 am

Hmmm Why doesn’t Iowa take this to one of their local district court judges to impose an injunction on the state of CA? Heavens knows CA goes to San Francisco to stop walls going up in Texas.

    On what grounds?

      Earnie89 in reply to Milhouse. | September 18, 2019 at 12:52 pm

      Grounds? So 9th circuit justices are requiring “grounds” before issuing injunctions? When did that start?

      Liberty Bell in reply to Milhouse. | September 18, 2019 at 2:37 pm

      One could argue that it violates the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution or that it violates the dormant commerce clause. But why bother litigating. No one in Iowa cares what these kooks do.

        It doesn’t do either of those things. Not even close. CA isn’t denying that IA’s laws are laws; it’s just saying it doesn’t like them. And it’s not preventing anyone from spending money in Iowa; just not its money.

    Such a case would not be heard before a District Court Judge. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in lawsuits between the States. The doctrine of Dual original jurisdiction would not apply.

    So a lawsuit would have to raise some interesting legal issues for the Court: do California’s actions — attempting to change public policy in Iowa, violate the sovereignty of Iowa? Is it an unlawful restriction in interstate commerce?

      Milhouse in reply to counsel. | September 18, 2019 at 8:12 pm

      California has every right to attempt to influence other states’ policies, and to express its opinion on those policies. The first amendment protects it too.

      And its choice not to engage in commerce doesn’t restrict anyone else’s commerce. We just went through that argument a few years ago in the 0bamacare case. The Supreme Court agreed that not engaging in commerce is not itself a commercial activity, and is thus not covered by the commerce clause; it follows that it’s not covered by the dormant commerce clause either.

        lgbmiel in reply to Milhouse. | September 19, 2019 at 11:55 am

        Again with amendments protect governments.

        No, they don’t. Governments are instituted to protect and guarantee the rights of the citizens.

        Governments have no rights, Milhouse. Governments have powers delegated by the People. People have rights, not governments.

To save time why not just say if Trump won you state in 2016 Liberalfonia refuses to due business. Except KS were Liberalfonia gets its Tesla charging power.

It’s cute that California thinks their ban on travel to Iowa should be seen as a punishment to Iowa.

Kinda like a bully saying “No more wedgies, until you say I’m smarter than you!”

    sestamibi in reply to rinardman. | September 19, 2019 at 12:34 am

    Couple of points.

    First, I can’t imagine what circumstances would require travel to Iowa by a California state employee in the first place. However, I wonder if California would prevent an of its law enforcement officers from traveling to Iowa to return a wanted fugitive. How would that play out?

    Second, Kamala Harris is no longer a California state employee. She was when she was attorney general, but as a US Senator, her salary is paid by the feds.

    Iowa Jim in reply to rinardman. | September 19, 2019 at 8:38 am

    That’s exactly how I feel.

None of the Dem candidates, as far as I can tell, are State of CA employees, so the ban does not impose any financial burden on them. The cost of virtue signaling, however will be enormous, as Leftist ill-logic consumes itself. How does Senator Harris support the ban -which essentially says Iowans are horrible people- and yet try to campaign there, and convince said horrible Iowans to vote for her. She’s going to need some serious pretzel logic.

    Milhouse in reply to TheChemist. | September 18, 2019 at 11:04 am

    She only has to appeal to Iowan Democrats. She can just say they are nice people, but the state’s Republican government is horrible.

Why would the state be funding travel out of state?

    For the same reason that any business or organization funds travel for its employees. There’s business to be done somewhere. Meetings. Conferences and conventions. Inspections. When you’re a business as big as the State of California there are always people traveling to something or other.

    90% of it is paid vacation for state employee’s for some “important” conference seemingly always held at a resort.

    No loss for Iowa. They should reciprocate and ban Californians from the state. Let them take that to court.

    Travel on state business and public university athletic teams.

The only course of effective retaliation I see is for other states to do the same to California. California relies on tourism more than many states. A smart California GOP could also use this as an issue.

    The California GOP isn’t that smart. Most are RINOs, like the guy running Orange County. Ask Ron Bassilian about the LA GOP – the same organization that ran out of money during the midterms. You’d think the National GOP would have given a few of those Trump millions they keep raising, but alas.

    There are lots of us here, as you know, that are conservative, want change, and are willing to take action to make that happen. Unfortunately, none of those people are associated with the GOP. Well, besides being registered Republicans. The GOP for all intents and purposes have given up on our once great and Golden State.

      With the exception of 1964, California’s electoral votes went to the Republican every election from 1948 through 1988. A lot has changed in 30 years.

What hubris it is for California to try to tell other states what to do within their own boundaries. What ever happened to “comity”, that is respect by one government for the acts of another? What Iowa should do is retaliate, banning taxpayer supported travel to California.

    OldProf2 in reply to Cicero. | September 18, 2019 at 11:16 am

    I agree. California has no business trying to control what other states do. Here in Washington State, the Democrat-controlled government apes everything that California does.

    We even have a law (probably contrary to the state constitution) that allows California to change our laws on automobiles as they wish. Our law requires that all cars sold in this state be certified in accordance with California law, so whatever California changes becomes our law.

    Iowa Jim in reply to Cicero. | September 19, 2019 at 8:41 am

    What Iowa should do is retaliate, banning taxpayer supported travel to California.

    That’s probably unnecessary. Very few of us want to travel to California. As far as I’m concerned, the reason that California has San Francisco and Los Angeles while Iowa has about twenty-five million pigs is that Iowa got first choice.

This will of course fall apart the second any sports team at a Kalifornia state school college can’t go to Iowa to play. Afterall, the universities do have their priorities in order.

Until California takes a stand for species-transition surgeries, they’re just virtue-signaling hypocrites.

So if the rest of us piss them off they have to stay home? Sounds like a plan.

Where the blue areas are almost entirely heavily populated metropolitan areas, and the red areas are rural and agricultural, I’ve often fantasized about bringing blue districts to their knees, overnight, by cutting off their import from red areas of essentials like food, fuel, power, water …

Iowa for example produces a lot of corn and soy … lets see how CA does without gas (ethanol) and Silk, tofu, etc. Or just tell them – “We can live without your Hollywood exports, can you live without our corn and soy?” Etc.

Of course the funniest part about this article is that Texas and Kentucky are ALREADY on the list lol…..

That adds the Hawkeyes and Cyclones to the list of teams a woeful UCLA is protected from.

All that Iowa popcorn sold in theaters showing Hollywood-produced movies was not enough for Kalifornia to refrain from bullying Iowa? Shame. State-funded travel by Kalifornians to Iowa was probably a huge source of revenue for the state, too. Tsk tsk.

Is Georgia still on the banned list? I fervently hope so.

If I remember correctly wasn’t Avenatti accused of mishandling the settlement paid to the survivor of a state supplied botched gender switch surgery? About $4 million.

Just because CA chooses to pay for this hi risk procedure it should respect the choice of other states to avoid exposing their taxpayers to the liability that occurs when surgeries go bad.