Skip to content 
Democratic US Senate candidate Josh Turek has sparked backlash from LGBTQ+ advocates after he released a campaign ad calling for an end to taxpayer-funded gender-affirming care, including treatment for transgender adults.
The Iowa state representative released the ad on Oct. 24, ahead of the November midterm elections. In the video, Turek also reiterates his opposition to transgender women competing in women’s sports, saying, “I’m against taxpayers paying for gender reassignments as well. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.”
The proposal has drawn particular concern because it appears to extend restrictions on care for transgender minors, potentially affecting access to gender-affirming health care for adults as well.
What would Turek’s proposal mean for trans healthcare?
Turek opens the ad by discussing his experiences as a child being bullied because of his disability.
“As a kid in a wheelchair, I faced my share of bullying. That’s why I believe no Iowan should face discrimination,” he says.
However, he then refers to transgender people, arguing that rules are necessary in sports and opposes the use of taxpayer money for gender-affirming care.
“That’s why I’m against males competing in female sports, something that’s already illegal in Iowa,” he says, before adding that he’s “against taxpayers paying for gender reassignments as well.”
The ad concludes with Turek calling for an end to what he describes as “the nonsense of both extremes” and a new focus on cutting costs for Iowans. It briefly shows Democratic Congresswoman Becca Balint, the first woman and the first LGBTQ+ person to represent Vermont in the US House of Representatives, asking Attorney General Pam Bondi about the survivors of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Turek’s proposal has been compared to a so-called “transgender Hyde Amendment,” a policy that restricts federal funding for gender-affirming care more broadly than the historic Hyde Amendment, the legislative provision first enacted in 1976 that blocks the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services with certain exceptions.
Erin In the morning via Substack points out that such a restriction could affect access to treatment through programs and institutions, including Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Affairs healthcare, federally subsidized Affordable Care Act insurance plans and federal hospitals. It could also affect funding for research and gender-responsive healthcare.
The consequences depend on the exact scope of each piece of legislation and how it was implemented. However, limiting federal funding could make treatment unaffordable or inaccessible for some transgender people who rely on publicly supported healthcare.
The proposal is also broader than restrictions specifically targeting transgender youth, as Turek’s campaign ad does not limit his opposition to minors.
Transgender advocates condemn the ad
The ad drew criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates, including Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, an organization that supports pro-transgender candidates.
“Turek’s attitude is cruel, electorally misguided, and out of step with his own party,” Hack said.
He added that Democrats and LGBTQ+ organizations must speak out against the proposal to keep the trust of transgender voters.
Turek’s campaign is part of a broader trend of Democratic candidates in competitive races adopting more restrictive positions on transgender rights. A Reuters report published earlier this month found that Democrats in closely contested Midwestern races are pursuing different approaches to transgender issues, with some embracing more conservative messaging.
In Iowa, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Rob Sand campaigned against transgender girls against girls’ sports, while congressional candidate Sarah Trone Garriott campaigned against what she described as men’s and women’s locker rooms.
Other Democratic candidates have taken a different approach, refusing to support restrictions on transgender people despite political pressure on the issue.
