Release: New South Dakota bill protects children from harmful drugs, surgeries and treatments

New South Dakota bill protects children from harmful drugs, surgeries and treatments
Rep. Fred Deutsch and 43 co-sponsors introduce Vulnerable Child Protection Act Tuesday

PIERRE, S.D. – Rep. Fred Deutsch Tuesday introduced the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, a bill to prevent medical harm against children struggling with questions about their identity.

Deutsch, who represents South Dakota’s 4th District, is a civic leader who has devoted his life to protecting and helping children – as a school board member, in his work with the Boys and Girls Club, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and now as a legislator. The Vulnerable Child Protection Act’s singular objective is to shield children from harm.

“Every child in South Dakota should be protected from dangerous drugs and treatments,” said Deutsch. “The solution for children’s identification with the opposite sex isn’t to poison their bodies with mega-doses of the wrong hormones, to chemically or surgically castrate and sterilize them, or to remove healthy breasts and reproductive organs. The solution is compassionate care, and that doesn’t include catastrophically and irreversibly altering their bodies.”

No studies have shown that these drugs and procedures are safe for children, but the permanent harm they can do is undeniable. However, parents are frequently given inaccurate, incomplete, and sometimes false information about the dangers of these treatments.

“Parents are further told that these treatments are well-studied, safe, and necessary. They are warned that if they do not consent to medical treatment, their child will be at higher risk of suicide,” said Deutsch. “But there’s no evidence to support this claim. Kids who are contemplating suicide require evaluation and treatment for conditions such as depression and anxiety. Castration, hysterectomies, puberty blockers and high dose hormones are not treatments for psychological conditions.”

The hasty intervention for children who are unsure of their identity ignores the experiences of the vast majority of young people. The Vulnerable Child Protection Act will prevent clinics and practitioners from pushing children and their parents to the point of no return.

“An ever-increasing number of people who had so called sex reassignment as minors now find themselves regretting the decision as they’ve matured. Performing irreversible sex reassignment on a minor whose brain is still developing is wrong,” Deutsch continued. “But we can try to prevent harm to those who may later regret it by hitting the pause button before someone pushes a child into a mistake today that cannot be corrected tomorrow.”

The bill was introduced Tuesday, January 14th.

Vulnerable Child Protection Act Jan, 2020 – Copy by Pat Powers on Scribd

(Editor’s note – the Vulnerable Child Protection Act has been introduced as House Bill 1057)

41 thoughts on “Release: New South Dakota bill protects children from harmful drugs, surgeries and treatments”

  1. Hey, Fred: parents and women go out of state for medical care every day. How is this legislation anything other than posturing?

    1. Expat, It’s clear you must have left the state before elementary school or a too a remedial civics class. I’m sorry your parents deprived you of a good, basic education. Or you aren’t the brightest bulb. A couple of simple things I’m listing for you to help you absorb the information.

      1) There are a lot of things allowed in other states that are illegal here. And vice versa.

      2) There are ordinances banning certain actions in Sioux Falls that are allowed in other cities too.

      3) It’s the norm to have differing laws and ordinances between neighboring governmental units.

      4) Alex deToqueville and other political thinkers found American’s tolerance for difference and instinct against uniformity of law is one of our greatest strengths protecting us from totalitarianism. Because France’s recent history had included the Jacobin’s and the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution and then the Empire of Napoleon, Alex saw a great contrast in the American Experiment from what was common in Europe.

      1. Troy, I still have property, a business interest and family there but leaving South Dakota in 2006 is still the best decision I’ve ever made. That your world is small is a good look for you.

        1. New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the union with rampant crime and drug addiction issues. Red Rock Road is a bad area.

    2. I’m glad you are enjoying where you live. Just because someone can do something in another state that is unlawful here does not mean the state of South Dakota should bend over and allow that action. It is OK to standards to live by.
      BTW, I enjoy living here in South Dakota. I also enjoy visiting other places. There are not very many places I have been that have made me want to live someplace else. Although I do admit with the weekend forecast, I am looking forward to a week in AZ.

    3. We’re making the right choice here in South Dakota; we can’t speak for the socialist states like California and New Yawk. We can only make our little corner of the world a better place.

      If you don’ like it, why don’t you sell your business and tell your family to move out to wherever you are so you don’t have to come to such a TERRIBLE state like South Dakota? Believe me, we won’t miss the likes of you.

  2. There are crazy parents, doctors and social workers who, due to psychiatric problems of their own, will advocate for a child’s transition when it isn’t even the child’s idea. Some parents suffer from Munchausen’s by Proxy. Other parents can be threatened with losing custody of their children if they don’t proceed as ordered by a physician or social worker.
    Making these procedures illegal for minors will spare children who aren’t really transgender from the deranged thinking of the adults in their lives.

    1. Well said. Children are like blank sheets of paper. You can fill it up with anything, even wild notions such as “natural biological identity doesn’t matter”.

    2. So the argument here is that social workers and physicians are not sufficient safeguards against munchausen by proxy and thus this law needs to be passed?

      1. So your argument is that social workers and physicians are adequate gatekeepers?

        My position is that the more “sick” people there are the more profit there is to be made. As such, the gates are left a little wider open than maybe they should be.

        Don’t worry. Everything is awesome. Everything is cool when you’re part of the team.

        1. I am curious how you delineate cases where medical and mental health professionals are or aren’t sufficient safeguards?

  3. Is this really a problem here? Can the sponsor and co-sponsor identify a single case of this happening? Or is this just posturing? I’m thinking once again we really don’t need annual sessions if this is the caliber of stuff they think needs to be addressed.

  4. We don’t allow minors to vote, drink alcohol, borrow money, smoke, take steroids to build muscle, but we think them competent to decide about a mutilation which will render them unable to have children, dependent on a lifetime of hormone treatments etc?

    If a child said he wanted to identify as Ray Charles, would we let him take out his eye? Or Captain Hook, cut off a hand?

    Loving a person isn’t letting minors do what they want. It is often saying no. While it it isn’t hate, letting people do what they want is a form of apathy, which in a way is worse than hate because it is a statement the person really doesn’t matter.

    You just can’t make this up.

      1. The analogy is we don’t allow children to make irreversible discretionary decisions without regard to how reasonable or sincere they may be, we prohibit children from doing acts permissible by parents, and we protect them from what could be the pathologies pushed on them or learned from their parents and we from irreversible decisions as best we can until they are adults and have a broader range of experiences, wisdom, and perspective.

        1. And for medical issues where parents’ illness may be the actual issue and not some underlying pathology for the kids, doctors and social workers are typically seen as sufficient safeguards for the wellbeing of the child. What I am wondering is why we felt the government needed to inject itself into the doctor patient relationship on this particular issue, which doesn’t appear to be a frequent one in South Dakota at all.

          To be blunt, this appears much more to be a culture war issue than anything else.

          1. EVERY federal prescription drug law is injecting itself into the doctor-patient relationship.

            EVERY statutory rape, child protection law, or child abuse (sexual, physical, emotional) law is injecting itself into the relationship between the adult and the child.

            And, in the vast majority of the above laws, the law/society steps aside when the minor becomes an adult.

            If anyone is making this a “culture war issue” it is those whose political, social, or sexual world-view is so transcendent they are willing to abandon basic concepts minors are not adults and fully capable to make life-long, irreversible decisions.

            My position is wholly consistent on my views regarding minors smoking, entering into contracts, serving in the military, drinking, and treated in the criminal courts.

            Only if you are willing to remove ALL minor protection laws is your position consistent. Otherwise, you are carving out an exception based on your culture war views.

            1. Yeah, see the ALL LAWS or NO LAWS is a false dichotomy you are setting up to make your case easier to argue. In most cases, the treatment provided by a doctor to a child is not presumptively scrutinized by the government unless complaints are raised. That is not the case here. To me, it feels like the government is injecting itself into the dealings of the family and a trained physician because they dislike that idea of transgendered individuals.

              Since we are going to accuse each other of being inconsistent, it seems that you want small government when it suits you but demand it in others when it doesn’t. You can’t trust the government with your tax dollars but you certainly trust it to tell families how to run their private lives. Now I know your view is more nuanced than that, but you see how easy it is to reduce other people’s arguments to absurdity to make a point, right?

              1. First, I don’t create a “all law” dichotomy as you assert. My point is every time there is an interjection, it is an interjection for a reason.

                Second, I have a broad libertarian disposition with regard to choices adults may make. I have a broad opposite disposition with regard to minors. In some cases, I defer to parents where the consequences are reversible/non-life altering. Where I don’t defer to parents, I have little hesitation to interject if I think the consequences are so significant they need to be made by the person as an adult.

                For instance, I support denying minors purchasing or using tobacco because it is likely to be addictive and have long-term health consequences but support no prohibition of such purchases upon reaching adulthood. If I am willing to restrict a decision which is only likely to have permanent consequences, you can rest assured I am willing to restrict a decision which is irreversible. My view on this is unrelated to my view on any culture war stance I may or may not hold.

                Since I don’t know your views on whether you support a distinction between adults and minors and when applied, I don’t know if yo are being consistent in principle or your transgender views are creating an inconsistency.

                All I am saying is allowing minors to make irreversible decisions, to be consistent requires you to also support a very broad lessening of the discussion or is evidence your culture war position is transcendent.

            2. The castration of a child is more offensive to me than a bad parent beating their child openly at the mall.

              The castration of an adult is very sad and engenders curiosity about the inputs to such an outcome.

              The castration of a bull is off-putting.

              The castration of the mind is the top of the agenda of any sophisticated attacking force.

  5. We need to be brilliantly clear on a few things here.

    Gender is determined at conception through DNA.

    Gender cannot be changed using surgery, or drugs. Right now, there is not a reliable way to rewrite DNA to change gender.

    Using surgery to change the gender is like boarding up a window to make it a wall. There is still a window there, it is just covered up.

    Using drugs, surgery and other methods to mutilate the body of a minor for this purposed is child abuse, and should be punished accordingly.

    1. You need to clear up what the difference between Gender and Sex because your definition is stupid and not correct at all according to an actual dictionary.

      SEX is assigned at birth by a provider – either a doctor or midwife to be either male or female, it is either of the two main categories into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

      GENDER on the other hand is either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

      While sex at birth cannot be changed, gender however is based on social constructs and can be changed without using drugs and surgery. Drugs and surgery are used to make physical characteristics to align with a given gender.

      As an actual Republican – what one person does with themselves or their bodies does not concern or bother me. I don’t need them telling me how I should grow my hair, manage my facial hair, or what type of levis I should be wearing.

      Who am I to tell a parent what to do for or to their child? When did the Chiropractor become such a concerned individual in the lives of trans youth? I would be curious what his relationship is with LGBT+ community other than his adversarial relationship.

      It’ll be curious what’ll happen if ever there’s a gay GOP person elected in Pierre. Lord knows the Congressional delegation doesn’t shy away from hiring gay people –

      1. In your opinion, how are gender and sex related?

        If you could rewind time and raise Desmond is Amazing in a different environment, would he turn out the same?

        Do cultural influences affect gender? Do they affect sex?

        “To win a debate, ask questions where you already know the answer.” — Grandma

  6. This item has been put off until next week meanwhile people who have appointments are driving to Denver, Omaha, Billings and Minneapolis to have these procedures performed.

  7. I am in favor of protecting children’s rights. Body piercings and tats were not allowed in my home until 18 and you went on your own. When asked why no body art after adulthood, ‘everybody’s got them, it’s no big deal now.’

    To expect a law in SD to protect our children is nonsense when the foster children who lived in the home of Richard and Wendy Mette almost 19 years ago, are to this day, still incorporated into DSS with the dirty hand played on them close to a decade back by our top law enforcement on down through DSS. If interested, you will find them incarcerated in various systems of profit throughout our state at ages of 24 on down.

    What would Serennity say on her 1st anniversary of independence from Black Hills Children’s Home under DSS supervision?

    1. Does the exception make the rule? Are we keeping score like that? Does intent matter?

      Chemical castration is offensive. The bigger picture suggests that this is part of a depopulation agenda.

      The human mind can be trained. Humans are not predestined (the pure Libertarian might disagree). So, in my opinion we have a moral obligation to think through issues like this carefully – perform the invisible thought work on the pillow, in the shower, on our commutes, and even sometimes during other work.

      If we want a society of transgenders, that idea will manifest, as well other ideas – both good and bad – that find origins in the human mind.

      1. “Depopulation agenda.” This is where I call you a loon and you tell me how you coded your own podcast site.

        1. And this is where I call you an ostrich.

          Google Agenda 21 and depopulation agenda.

          You gotta be able to back into an agenda. It’s like parallel parking, I guess. Some people can do it .. some people can’t.

          What I mean is, the more boys and girls we chemically castrate, the less likely we are to have population increase.

          1. Exceptions do not make rules, John!

            Calling this an exception highlights how uninformed you are along with most South Dakotans. The Mette rape case consisted of 5 children physically and sexually abused by foster parents over a 9 year period of time with DSS knowledge early on, could possibly be called an exception if they were all white. These 5 were native from 14 years on down when the lid came off in 2010.

            Indian children make our state millions in federal dollars and we continue to churn broken people through those systems for the dollar.

            The criminal cover up came when the state fearing a tort liability buried the evidence of 11 charges against Wendy Mette forcing the children to remain in her home ending the chances of attorneys acting for the children.

            22 of the 23 charges against Richard Mette were dropped with him already coming of out prison in September of 2018, most likely the same prison the young man beaten by him in 2010 now occupies.

            The law in SD mostly operates when there is a profit to be made, John. Think, drugs, no bid contracts, paid bureaucrats choosing the winners and losers, all operating outside of natural law or state law.

            1. “exceptions don’t make rules”

              You are way out in the weeds with this. You seem to be addressing an argument that I did not make.

        2. “how you coded your own podcast site”

          I created a capture/encode/packet-ize in-studio client that securely communicates with a scalable enterprise Java cloud node for limitless distribution as we grow.

          You know very little about the Internet and technology, and that’s okay.

  8. John, no argument with me. You asked; ‘Does the exception make the rule? Are we keeping score like that? Does intent matter?’

    I answered; ‘Exceptions do not make rules, John!’

    Comprehend my point above on laws protecting children in SD.

    Do we continue to over regulate until statist governance controls our ability to personally off gas or do we bring education and social repair to the surface. What an industry it could be.

    I’ll go with the new law if you think it will bring SD and DSS some correction as they continue the destruction of children for money at a rate of a 1000 to 1 for a sterilization or sex change op.

    1. “personally off gas”

      Well said. Point taken. Edgy and funny.

      The art of legislating is understanding the threshold of value of enacting laws.

      I think the law will bring awareness to the issue in a time when the seems extorted and un-free to publish in depth analysis about an issue like this for fear advertisers will pull support.

      Ergo, interestingly, the publication of a law that should be common sense might do the job the media should be doing on this and other issues.

      This is not a difficult issue, but the fact that the value being legislated is not already embedded in our culture is a difficult issue.

  9. ‘This is not a difficult issue, but the fact that the value being legislated is not already embedded in our culture is a difficult issue.’

    My point also, John. Wise words beyond my ability of expression.

    I guess thirty plus years back, culture started deadening the boundaries man used to morally respect.

  10. Has anyone seen that the Chamber of Commerce just came out AGAINST this bill? I can’t wait for the NCAA to come out opposed to this bill as well.

Comments are closed.