Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Issues Statement on President Biden’s Executive Actions Expanding Obamacare and Attacking Life

U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) issued the following statement today on executive actions taken by President Joe Biden to expand Obamacare and allow taxpayer dollars to be spent to fund overseas abortions:

“We’ve spent the last four years fighting to roll back government overreach in private healthcare and protect the sanctity of human life. In the early days of the Biden presidency, we are watching some of our progress be destroyed.

“Obamacare led to higher premiums, fewer options for consumers and caused millions of Americans to lose the health insurance they preferred. We eliminated Obamacare’s individual mandate giving patients better control of their health insurance. Today’s steps to expand Obamacare are steps reversing our progress. They do not move us forward, only backward.

“Additionally, I am deeply disappointed in President Biden’s decision to overturn the Mexico City Policy. This decision will allow federal taxpayer dollars to be spent to fund abortions overseas. This is flat-out wrong – an attack on life anywhere is an attack on life everywhere.

“President Biden has said he wants to be a president for all Americans. But actions speak louder than words. These actions prove that he is only interested in furthering a left-wing agenda.”

###

For a while it seemed it would be a sedate and quiet session, with legislators tending to business.  And in the last couple of days, it seems the crazy stuff is starting to pop up.

Today, we have a second anti-vaxxer measure, solely sponsored by State Representative Phil Jensen:

Nothing in this chapter may be construed to interfere with each person’s inalienable right to bodily integrity. The right to bodily integrity includes being free from any threat or compulsion to accept any medical intervention, including any vaccination.

No person may, as a result of refusing to accept a medical intervention, including any vaccination, be subjected to discrimination or retaliation with respect to association, education, employment, housing, property rights, public accommodations, or public services.

Read it all here.

So.. if I’m reading this correctly, not only would grade schools have to accept people who are not vaccinated against measles and polio.. Phil’s bill would have even farther ranging consequences.

If a person appears to be clearly mentally ill, has no interest in treatment, and insists on living on a sidewalk in from of Phil’s house, or place of business, House Bill 1159 seems to give them a.) the right to refuse treatment, and b.) it appears they can’t be retaliated against for choosing to live on the public sidewalk.

Or, even better, someone clearly high on drugs could cut their wrists, and under Phil’s proposal, refuse medical intervention.. and bleed out. Literally, legalizing suicide.

That’s just great. Because legislators need to spend their time with goofy stuff.

Ugh.

If Democrats get their way, they’re going to demand all South Dakotans mask up if they venture out. Sort of:

Senate Bill 125

An Act to require the wearing of face coverings in the state under certain conditions and to declare an emergency.

Sponsors: Senators Nesiba and Heinert and Representatives Healy, Bordeaux, Cwach, Duba, Keintz, and Smith (Jamie)

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota:

Section 1. Definition–Indoor retail business. For the purpose of this Act, the term, retail business, means any enclosed business operating as a bar, restaurant, brewery, café, casino, coffee shop, recreational or athletic facility, health club, grocery store, market, retail store, hardware store, sporting goods store, convenience store, home improvement store, pharmacy, drug store, food pantry, vehicle for hire, transportation networking company, theater, or entertainment venue.

Section 2. Mask requirement. Within the state, all persons shall wear a face covering in an indoor retail business and city-owned facility where six-foot social distancing cannot be achieved or maintained. A face covering shall be worn to cover the nose and mouth completely, and can be a paper or disposable mask, a cloth mask, a scarf, a bandana, or a neck gaiter.

Section 3. Exceptions. The requirements of section 2 of this Act do not apply to:

(1) A person under the age of five years old;

(2) A person seated at a public place to eat or drink, or while immediately consuming food or beverages;

(3) A person who is receiving dental or medical care that prevents the person from wearing a face covering;

(4) A person with a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that makes it unreasonable for the person to maintain a face covering;

(5) A person who is engaged in swimming or a team sports activity where the level of exertion makes it difficult to wear a face covering;

(6) Public safety workers actively engaged in a public safety role, including law enforcement personnel, fire fighters, or emergency medical personnel, in situations where wearing a face covering would seriously interfere in the performance of the person’s public safety responsibilities; and

(7) Any member of a group of persons who are in an indoor retail business together and live in the same household or are a party of ten less, so long as the group maintains a continuous physical distance of at least six feet from all other persons not part of the household or party.

Section 4. Repealer. This Act is repealed on September 30, 2021.

Section 5. Whereas, this Act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this Act shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval.

Read it here.

So, they will let you off the hook if you’re swimming.. but for not much else?  I have to go look and see who the three Democrats are who didn’t sign onto this mess.   .. Red Dawn Foster.. Lesmeister.. Pourier..  yep. That would be mainly the Democrats west of the Missouri River not in leadership.

I guess I’m not sure what the point is, especially since it just says “all persons shall wear a face covering.”

What if they don’t? Does it mean it’s just a strongly worded suggestion?

This might be one of the dumbest pieces of legislation this session. Good luck with that one.

Governor Noem must be getting more popular on a national basis, as no less than the New York Times did an attack piece against the Governor for her stewardship during the COVID-19 Crisis.

However, Governor Noem has the truth on her side, as related by the Gov’s Senior Advisor Maggie Seidel, who dropped a truth-bomb on the problematic reporting via e-mail to the state’s media:

For those of you who get questions about the agitprop the New York Times put out this morning about Governor Noem, I thought you’d like to have the actual facts in hand.

The Times asserts that Governor Noem is “a uniquely dangerous kind of politician, one who’s reckless but sounds rational, smart but intellectually dishonest and is willing to endanger South Dakotans just to get a few political points.”

Not quite the “tender embrace” we had hoped for, but there’s still time…

I’m going to skip the point-by-point rebuttal, and instead highlight a couple of the most absurd issues with the piece.

The opening CNN clip stating, “More people are testing positive than negative” in South Dakota, is not true. At no point during the pandemic was it true. Anybody following the data put out by the South Dakota Department of Health knows that this claim is 100% false.

The claim that China stopped the spread of the virus is laughable. How did the virus – which originated in China – spread to every across the globe

Why did the Times make no mention of South Dakota’s outstanding deployment of the vaccine. Governor Noem is the “Vaccine Queen,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Of course, this is a testament to the people of South Dakota, the outstanding team at the Department of Health, and our health care providers across the state.

Given the Times’ attempt to rewrite history here, it’s probably time to revisit the facts we sent out when these hit pieces originally ran back in November.

Using a 7-day rolling average is ridiculous. The virus moved across the globe in waves. The better statistic would be to layer each of the waves on top of each other and compare data points. When you do that, you get a very different picture.

As I pointed out back in November, the entire United States hadn’t broken the top 10 list for deaths (per 100,000) globally.

The death rate (per 100,000) on November 16^th:

1. New Jersey – 187
2. New York – 175
3. Massachusetts – 150
4. Connecticut – 133
5. Louisiana – 132

North Dakota was 8^th on the list at 97.

South Dakota was 17^th on the list at 73 – lower than the overall US death rate per 100,000.

Also at the time, the world was seeing a rise in cases. The Midwest – not only North and South Dakota, but also Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and many others – saw cases rise. Then, and still today, there is zero science – yes, zero – to support the claim that South Dakota saw a rise in cases because Governor Noem wouldn’t issue a mask mandate or other harsh restrictions.

We shared:

Illinois health officials reported 10,631 new cases, and 72 deaths on Sunday. Illinois has had a mask mandate for everyone over the age of 2 since May 1.

 Minnesota health officials reported a record 8,703 new cases and 35 new deaths on Saturday. Minnesota’s mask mandate has been in place since July 25.

Wisconsin health officials reported more than 5,100 new cases and 52 more deaths on Saturday. Wisconsin’s mask mandate has been in place since August 1.

Today, if we look exclusively at death rate, South Dakota still fares better than the Times’ beloved lockdown states:

The death rate (per 100,000) as of January 27, 2021:

1. New Jersey – 238
2. New York – 220
3. Massachusetts – 206
4. Rhode Island – 201
5. Mississippi – 197

South Dakota is 7^th on the list at 193.
North Dakota is 8^th on the list at 189.

But the story runs deeper than that. Because the author moves back and forth between case and death-rate data as if they’re interchangeable – a frequent and deliberately misleading tactic of those agitating for more intrusive government mandates. The viewer is left with the impression that South Dakota is somehow unique when it comes to Covid deaths. That’s totally false.

The Times also failed to note that our cases in the fall/winter came down as fast or faster than states under severe lockdowns, like Illinois..

The sad news is that this piece recycles the same stale narrative the mainstream media has attacked Governor Noem with for months. This piece is irresponsible, intellectually dishonest, and the latest example of purposeful media manipulation.

Curious, should we hold our breath for the Times to do a similar piece on Andrew Cuomo?

Stay well.

-Maggie

Maggie Seidel
Senior Advisor & Policy Director
Office of Governor Kristi Noem

What do you think?

Wow. Check out House Bill 1097 that was just filed, as primed by Representative Tom Pischke and also sponsored by Representative Phil Jensen which provides for additional exemptions for statutorily required childhood vaccinations:

The measure changes the existing law from providing an exemption for “a religious doctrine whose teachings are opposed” to a far, far more permissive “because of a sincerely held religious or philosophical belief.”

Philosophical beliefs?

Well, yes. That could include a long-held religious doctrinal belief. Unfortunately, that could also include a philosophical belief as in ‘I read it on Facebook.’

It’s a bit shocking that during a time where the legislature is in the middle of cleaning up a society-wide mess that a pair of anti-vaxxer legislators would want to allow people to bring back more pandemics because of nutty facebook drivel. (And yes, before you ask, Pischke and Jensen were sponsors of last year’s anti-vaxxer measure HB 1035 which cost 5 people legislative seats.)

Another measure that will likely – and should – go down like rubella when faced with a properly vaccinated child.

Governor Noem Introduces Legislation to Enhance Law Enforcement Training Requirements

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem introduced legislation to enhance training requirements for law enforcement officers in South Dakota.

“Law enforcement does incredible work each and every day to keep us safe,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “In South Dakota, we trust and respect the men and women who put their lives on the line every day. Our objective is to protect and reaffirm this mutual trust, and we believe this enhanced training requirement will help achieve that goal.”

Governor Noem’s legislation would require law enforcement officers to attend response to resistance training. Officers will be required to retake this training at least once every two years.

Additionally, Governor Noem voiced support for legislation to add two South Dakotans without a law enforcement background to the Law Enforcement Officers Standards Commission to enhance the Commission’s oversight and strengthen transparency.

“By giving civilians a voice on the Law Enforcement Officers Standards Commission, we can strengthen mutual trust between law enforcement officers and the general public,” continuedGovernor Noem.

The Governor also applauds the Commission’s recent efforts to review its rules to build more accountability into the law enforcement certification process.

###

Apparently Sioux Falls City Councilor Patrick Starr has some pretty pointed opinions about people who run a business and have part time employees. A few days back in a business related facebook group, a business owner was expressing her concern about a $15/hr min wage increase and how it could affect her business.

And as it was related, Starr went full “Bernie bro” on her, and offered his opinion:

 

“If you can’t pay $15 for part time work you have a bad business model” and “you have to run a business not a hobby.”

I’m not sure what Starr does for a living, but it doesn’t seem like he’s ever ran a business where he has to pay a wage to employees. Calling someone out for being concerned about their labor costs, and blasting them as needing to “run a business and not a hobby” is just beyond the pale.

Rounds: Impeachment Trial of Former President is Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today joined 44 of his Senate colleagues in declaring the impeachment trial of Donald Trump unconstitutional on the grounds that he is a private citizen no longer in office.

“The Constitution is clear that holding an impeachment trial of a former president, former official, or – more specifically – a private citizen, is unconstitutional and that the Senate should not go down this path. Donald Trump is no longer in office and is now a private citizen. Impeachment is intended to be the legislative branch’s check on the executive and judicial branches of government- not a check on our constituency.

“Our Founding Fathers did not intend to put private citizens on trial in the Senate. Why, then, would we hold an impeachment trial of which the immediate consequence upon conviction – removal from office – is something that has already happened? Removal from office implies that the subject to be impeached must be in office. It doesn’t make sense.”

Article 2, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  Donald Trump is neither the President, Vice President, nor is he a civil officer of the United States.

###