National Review blasts SD Senate Committee for rejecting Transgender surgery ban for minors

One of the writers at the National Review magazine posted a article today which had some strong words for the State Senate Health & Human Services Committee for their rejection of House Bill 1057:

The Cowardly Republicans of South Dakota

When presented with evidence, senators put their fat heads between their legs.

For proof that Republicans can be just as lazy, self-serving, and cowardly as Democrats, look no farther than the South Dakota Senate.

As reported by my colleague Tobias Hoonhout, this week Republican senators Duhamel, Rusch, Steinhauer, and Soholt of the Health and Human Services Committee all joined the 5–2 majority that effectively killed a bill designed to make it easier for gender-confused minors to attain financial compensation later in life — should they realize, before age 38, that the doctors who stunted their puberty, destroyed their fertility, and permanently impaired their sexual function had failed to meet the acceptable standards of (what are we calling it these days?) health care.

Read the entire story here.

Well, that’s kind of harsh. And maybe a bit unnecessary.  The bigger fight will be on the Senate floor, where we might see more fireworks on the measure as it’s anticipated that the bill will be ‘smoked out’ of committee, which will require a motion from the floor of the Senate.

A ‘smoke out’ is a procedure in which a third of state senators have to vote to direct the committee to bring the bill to the floor, which if supported, the bill will typically be sent from the committee with a ‘no recommendation’ vote.

The call to demand this procedural measure will be the first true test of whether the bill can survive a hearing in the full Senate.  We’ll know that soon enough with the smoke out motion possibly happening as soon as today when the Senate meets at 1pm.

36 thoughts on “National Review blasts SD Senate Committee for rejecting Transgender surgery ban for minors”

  1. I’m not familiar with Madeline Kearns’s body of work, but National Review’s website does publish several writers who rely heavily on rhetoric to cover for a lack of detail or accuracy, or as a sort of sleight-of-hand to distract from their dubious base assumptions or leaps in logic. If this had been one of those writers (Andrew C. McCarthy or Victor Davis Hanson, for instance), I’d be confident about adding “misleading” (or worse) to “harsh” and “unneccessary”. Like I said, I haven’t read enough of Ms. Kearns’s work to be familiar with her, and I haven’t viewed the hearing. But “harsh” and “National Review” is a combination that makes me suspicious.

    1. Are you familiar with the issue of child abuse Steve?

      We don’t need a National writer to discuss the facts here.

      1. i think this post is more about the incendiary and unhelpful language of the columnist. the broadbrush insult ‘cowards’ only applies to some republicans, it was a solid wall of like-minded republicans that advanced this bill in the first place.

  2. The bill sponsor couldn’t even answer the medical malpractice statute implications and said he Googled part of the bill. Rusch was the only one who brought it up, but likely the pivotal issue. The bill sponsor couldnt reconcile that.

    1. What makes it a necessary medical procedure at 6 years old? Will they die if they don’t have this procedure?

      The am guessing the child abuse statues override the medical malpractice statutes.


      Please do tell what they could be charged with under the medical malpractice statute?

      What physical medical issue will happen to the child if the surgery is not done until they are 18?

    2. The sponsor (me) spoke extensively about changes to the bill. For those interested, below are my prepared comments:

      Madam Chair, Members of the Committee,

      Today I bring you HB1057, the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, a bill that should you agree to amend, will establish a civil cause of action for gender-nonconforming young people, if they come to believe they were harmed by medical professionals.

      Madam Chair, may I speak to the amendment?

      Thank you Madam Chair. In an effort to be responsive to concerns I’ve heard from victims who regret transitioning as adolescents, I offer amendment 1057N, which replaces the criminal penalty with a civil cause of action.

      Under the amended bill, doctors may not prescribe puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to gender-nonconforming children under 16, but there is no criminal penalty. Instead, in section 3, children are provided a civil cause of action.

      May I ask the committee to please consider moving amendment 1057N?

      Thank you. With the bill now amended, you have significantly changed the character of the bill, but not it’s purpose, which is to protect vulnerable children. When a certain SD senator who also happens to be former judge suggested the amendment, the first question I had to ask myself is does the amendment still offer protection to vulnerable children? The answer, I believe is, it does. The second question I asked myself is, is the amended bill necessary. I posed that question to another of your senate colleagues who happens to practice malpractice law. He answered affirmatively, since it explicitly establishes a cause of action for these children with a remedy that would otherwise be left up in the air. The bill also establishes a 20-year duration after reaching the age of majority because of the unique nature of the procedures and the importance of obtaining truly informed consent. Commonly, according to the literature, it takes between 10-20 years for gender-nonconforming young people to experience deep regret over permanent harms (like sterilizaiton) suffered as children.

      So, let me give you an example of what this amended bill does: let’s say a doctor starts an 11 year old girl on the puberty blocker Lupron with her parents’ consent. Then, at age 14, the girl identifies as a trans-male and requests Testosterone with her parents’ consent, and the doctor prescribes it. Next, after taking Testosterone for a year, she and her parents consent to and obtain a double mastectomy for her. In this example , the doctors will not face any penalty unless the child eventually regrets her transition and feels she suffered harm in the process, and then she’ll have a cause for action against the doctors in court.

      So, if this 11 yo girl transitions by age 15, and at age 23 considers her permanent masculinized voice, her 5 O’clock shadow, her missing breasts and infertility to be wrongful, we know her damaged body can’t be repaired, but under this amended bill, we’ll have provided her a way to pursue financial compensation through the court system until she turns 38.

      This amended bill avoids criminalizing doctors, avoids involving the state in the doctor-patient relationship, and does not affect parental rights.

      To conclude, let’s say our opponents are correct, and these medical interventions are truly lifesaving, then so be it. But at very least, the amended bill puts doctors on notice that there are young victims expressing tragic regret.

      And in the event our opponents are wrong, then let’s allow young people who experience regret a chance to pursue civil remedies. We can’t give them their bodies back, but we can allow them to seek a remedy through the court system.

      I ask you to please support the amended bill, and I will stand by for questions.

        1. Or how about finding a different hobby that targeting the LGBT+ community that he seems to have a real ax to grind with?

          What is it with legislators in Pierre and the LGBT+ community?

          Why not spend your time, that we pay you too much for, shrinking the number of state regulations or the size of state government in general?

          How about paying teachers a livable salary?

          How about working on keeping South Dakota’s best and brightest here in state by creating jobs and investing in high dollar paying jobs?

          How about expanding access to trade schools?

          Make life better here, and a little easier along the way, without making life harder for others.

          1. This post is like trying to make sweet love to an ant. No matter how hard you try, you’re just never gonna get there.

            LGBTQ is not under attack with this legislation. It might be more accurate to say that by virtue of it’s advocacy for brainwashing and chemical castration of children the LGBTQ community finds itself in an untenable position. Its reputation will suffer (and should). Through its own herd stupidity, it attacked itself.

            What we are NOT saying:

            Biological factors NEVER converge and gender reassignment surgery SHOULD NEVER be performed to ease the pain of a consenting adult in a difficult and rare biological predicament.

            What we ARE saying:

            The sexual disposition of a child can be influenced for political and financial gain, and we should allow the child’s body and mind to develop before making irreversible changes to the child’s sexuality.

            But then, now that I think about it, in this economy maybe it’s a good thing to date ants. They don’t eat much, and I can think of a couple of great Marvel movies that would work perfectly for date night, so forget I said anything.

            1. No, what you are saying is that the South Dakota legislature knows better for all cases than doctors, family members, and mental health professionals for kids they’ve never met.

  3. It’s “press” like that National Review that make it hard for common sense solutions to be worked on and passed. When you have the alt right and the alt left dictating publicly about policy, all the village idiots get wound up and nothing of great consequence gets done.

    I really hope the smoke out fails because this is terrible legislation that a court will hopefully overturn if necessary.

    1. Why would the court overturn protecting children from child abuse?

      As for the press, where has the local press been on reporting the facts of the issue?

      Let’s ask every doctor in SD and see what the results are.

          1. “Remember when the press used to look out for US Citizens and not the DNC?”

            I’m 44, so no. I don’t remember a time when I felt as though the MSM could be trusted to do anything but fleece and manipulate the US public.


  4. The National Review is targeting the wrong politicians. The senate killed the bill in committee because Governor Kristi Noem pressured them heavily to do so. Fred Deutsch has spoken to this fact. Several lobbyists in the capitol are well aware of it. Kristi opposed the bill, but she didn’t want to have to be held accountable by voters for vetoing the legislation.

    1. What is the SD GOP’s plan for a post-Noem administration? Her tenure is mired in bad decisions. She even seems to shy away from promoting the really good outcomes (on meth) effectively. Is she one of the Governors referred to in this?

  5. This bill died for three reasons:

    1). The issue has become charged such that rational discussion and education is hard. It doesn’t mean it can’t be had but I assure you, calling them cowards or thinking they are enemies will not convince anyone, now or in the future.

    2). There was insufficient anticipation and planning for the opposition and its sources. When you insulate yourself from the opposite side, you should not be surprised when they surprise you.

    3). There are too many bills seen by the public as “nutty” which made it easy to lump this as just another bill from the crazies.

    This didn’t have to happen and it’s defeat makes me sad as these children are among our most vulnerable. But unless we look inside ourselves and see our own role in the outcome, we can expect future failure.

    1. If we had “rational discussion”, children would not learn in public schools that they can be any gender they so please. This is part of the revolution designed to bring America down.

      1. people who actually deal with this in their lives might take issue with the notion that it’s a ‘choice.’

      2. bad medicine comes from bad doctors. we have laws to deal with bad doctors already. the unintended consequences of a layman-level mandate to doctors are real and also bad.

      3. Ah yes, everyone who disagrees with Steve Sibson hates America and wants to destroy it. It must be terribly difficult to step in for god, buddy.

    2. This is intentional misrepresentation, Troy. You’re well connected enough to know what was actually going on behind the scenes.

      1) The national media and LGBTQ activists engaged in irrational behavior and hyperbolic responses, not the bill’s supporters.

      2) The bill’s proponents offered up well a well-reasoned argument for the legislation’s need. They also defended it well.

      3) The public in South Dakota supported this bill. The only people referring to the bill’s supporters as “crazies” were those who already opposed it for political and personal reasons (Noem and her allies.).

  6. The NR’s commentator puts a disturbing trial lawyer spin to the piece. I truly hope this is not a stealth malpractice expansion effort.

  7. Anonymous 12:47,

    First, why would I intentionally misrepresent. I am pretty sure I made the most posts and typed the most words defending this bill on the War College, I made several on Facebook, and took the time to go see friends who made adverse comments on Facebook.

    1). I agree. But as I said above, I do not think there was sufficient preparation and communication outside of stalwart supporters prior to session and insufficient anticipation of the opposition.

    2). I agree they did a very good job inside the Capitol building. Unfortunately, the opposition came from outside the building and legislators are influenced by their constituents. That is how it works in a democracy and it is naive to think otherwise.

    3). You may or may not be right on public support. But on the crazy comment, I think you are missing my point. Unfortunately, the biased Argus has highlighted the goofy proposals making it seem everything the legislature is working on is crazy crap. And that perception the Legislature has lost its mind made it easy for the opponents to toss this bill into the “crazy bin” whereby people who might have listened to the good arguments except it was already in the “crazy bin” which is a outcome this good Bill didn’t deserve.

Comments are closed.