State Rep Fred Deutsch’s Statement on HB 1008 Veto

Here’s the actual statement if you don’t want to squint at the picture:

The 2016 South Dakota legislature should be proud of the difficult but necessary decision to increase taxes to increase our teacher’s salaries. And that is what South Dakota should be known as: cautious to raise taxes but practical when confronted with a problem.

We will continue to have the lowest tax burden in the country, BUT we will no longer by 51st in teacher pay.

HB 1008 was intended to be a practical solution to our evolving social values on gender issues. Unfortunately emotions on both sides of this issue have dominated the news coverage and the recent debate. I still believe an objective reading of the proposed law is consistent with my intent to be non-discriminatory and fair to all students and parents.

However, because I think the national focus on South Dakota should be on our positive business environment, strong labor market and the excellent work our schools do, I am going to ask my legislative colleagues to concur with the Governor’s veto. Further focus on this issue will detract from the other significant accomplishments of the legislature this session.

Respectfully,
Rep. Fred Deutsch

18 thoughts on “State Rep Fred Deutsch’s Statement on HB 1008 Veto

  1. Anonymous

    Very unfortunately shaped shadows at the bottom of the page in context of the bill.

  2. Anonymous

    Of course he would post this. He will now do whatever Daugaard wants. The governor pulled his support from Wiik for the senate seat in Dist 4 because Wiik wouldn’t do his bidding, gave it to Deutsch.

    1. wow

      Do not respect Fred. He hangs people out there for favor with the Governor and personal gain, a seat in the Senate. He should do the walk of shame. Sad to see people compromise their values . .

  3. Cliff Hadley

    South Dakota is one of about a dozen states that is wrestling with this issue. Let’s put it this way: When — not if — biological boys and girls show up in the wrong locker room or bathroom, and the predictable chaos ensues, there will be lawsuits from parents demanding damages from school districts for allowing sexual harassment.

    The feds? They’ve already sided with the transgenders. So the parents and schools won’t win. The price will be steep. A culture that won’t protect its children deserves the calamity to come.

      1. Cliff Hadley

        What a pity you have so little respect for the natural differences of boys and girls and their vulnerability in locker rooms and restrooms.

        Adults must be aware of those differences or pay a severe price. As a coach I never went into the girls locker room, and as a teacher I would always keep the door open when meeting a student of either sex alone. Years ago male coaches showered with their male athletes. That doesn’t happen anymore — there are legal reasons, yes, but primarily it’s a recognition of students’ need for modesty and privacy.

        There are other ways school restrooms and locker rooms can be unsafe. Growing up, I lived in Flint, Mich., in the 1960s. During that time, my two sisters were assaulted by other girls in the restrooms at their high school. It was black-on-white, and even then no one in authority would do anything except advise, “Well, be careful.” And, yes, I was sexually harassed in the locker room by other kids getting their kicks and making their friends laugh.

        And now you laugh, too. The threat of physical violence is real — especially boys being in places reserved for girls — but the presence of biological opposites can create intense discomfort, as well, even for adults. Bottom line: No one has the right to impose their radical and often self-destructive notions about sexuality — views always at odds with natural and scientific facts.

        You’re right, though. I lose. But so do you. Forgive me for not getting the joke.

        1. Lynn

          Cliff,

          I don’t think this is at all funny and am very sorry what your sisters and you went thru. That is terrible and those memories shape and stick with us. This is not some political game either with rubbing one’s noses into the supposed “culture warriors”. It totally dismisses their fear and concerns which does not help.

          Again every situation is different and even the intensity of those who are Transgender may vary from person to person.

          One example that could be very rare would be a transgender grade school girl. Born physically a boy this child in every way in behavior and identity from the earliest age was a “girl.” This child has spent years of going to a mental health professional with various screenings using strict guidelines and other than physically being a boy was all girl in behavior.

          Everyone that had contact with this child just accepted her as a girl. This child’s neighborhood girlfriends and at school accepted and were even protective of her.

          This child will not feel right about their own body will try to hide those parts that don’t match. If this child shared a locker room or bathroom they would feel very self conscious and there would be nothing as far as voyeurism.

          If a parent and /or student objected to this rare case of a transgender girl being in the same room in a state of undress than an accommodation would be made.

        2. Lynn

          Cliff,

          My best friend for 30 plus years has young daughters in his family. He and his wife are conservative Christians and home schooled their children doing the best they could to educate, protect and give them the best chance possible to succeed in life.

          When I think of the SD High School Association policy I am always thinking about respecting theirs and others concerns too. I’m protective of them too.

          The policy is flexible and looks to protect everyone while making it a safe educational environment.

          1. Cliff Hadley

            Lynn…

            Again, thanks for your thoughtful responses. Other states are wrestling with this issues, as well. My main concern is protecting others — especially girls and women — from male sexual predators masquerading as transgender people. This is happening already. South Dakota schools have no legal leg to stand on if they deny access to a male who thinks he’s female.

  4. anon

    I just received an email from the capitol chaplain at 4:01 pm stating that Fred Deutsch has changed his mind and will now seek to override the governor’s veto. Anyone know if this is true?

    1. Anon

      If true, that’s very disappointing. Can’t we just let this issue rest for now and fight about it again next year?

  5. Pingback: South Dakota Legislature Kills ‘Transgender Bathroom’ Bill | Strange Days in Real Estate

  6. Pingback: South Dakota Gov Dennis Daugaard vetoes transgender bathroom bill, fears lawsuits - The Global Dispatch