Governor Noem appoints Stacy Vinberg Wickre to the 7th Circuit Court
PIERRE, S.D. – Governor Noem has appointed Stacy Vinberg Wickre to serve as a circuit court judge for the 7th Judicial Circuit, made up of Custer, Fall River, Oglala Lakota, and Pennington Counties. Judge Vinberg Wickre replaces retired Judge Robert Mandel.
“Stacy has shown common sense and fortitude that will suit her well as she takes the bench,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “She has handled a wide variety of cases in her practice and will take a balanced approach.”
Stacy has been a Deputy State’s Attorney for Pennington County since 2017 and currently serves as the Felony Department Supervisor. In addition to her experience in prosecution over the last 11 years, she spent over 16 years in private practice in Minnesota and South Dakota.
“I am truly honored and humbled to accept Governor Noem’s appointment and to serve as a Circuit Court Judge,” said Stacy VinbergWickre.
Stacy grew up in Montana, receiving her bachelor’s degree from Montana State University – Northern, and her Juris Doctor from the University of Montana in 1994. Stacy has called South Dakota her home since 1999. She loves spending time with her husband, son, and daughter horseback riding in the Hills, roping, fishing, hiking, and hunting. A photo of Stacy can be found here.
This has been bouncing around the last couple of days on Facebook, and I just caught it today.
And seriously? I can’t express how much dumber I am for having read it:
The reporter has her own comments about it as well:
i’m honestly surprised it’s taken this long for people to come at me based on my hair. a “students first” fb group posted my photo & cited my “liberal bias” -no quotes from my stories, just a photo of me/my hair.
my hair doesn’t write my stories or affect my reporting in any way
Personally, having read Abby Wargo while she was at the Cap Journal and now at the RCJ, I can’t say that I’ve ever noted anything that made me roll my eyes, or gave me cause to point out what I perceive as bias. But that’s just me. If you want to disagree with what the reporter writes, go for it. I do it all the time. Go ahead and call balls and strikes on her ideas. All in favor of that.
But when you’re left with taking pot-shots at the reporter’s personal appearance because of how she colored her hair? You probably should be embarrassed.
And really, I’m just dumber for having read it on Facebook, and I’m personally embarrassed that people claiming to be “Conservative” put it in writing. Because it’s not conservative.
It’s just basically being a sh*thead, and turning people who might support you into those who will not.
From Sanford Health, the latest report seems to show that of the people hospitalized, we’re continuing to run consistent numbers when you compare it to the prior report. First the latest report from 7 hours ago…:
And the prior report from about a week ago..
About the same hospitalized and in the ICU, but the number on ventilators seems to be starting to creep up.
Big commonality is that 95% of the people in the hospital sick with COVID-19 have not gotten vaccinated.
After US Congressman Jim Clyburn held a press conference to complain that the distribution of rental welfare in several states needs to be faster, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem fired back at the Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.
Noem let the Congressman know that South Dakota is managing just fine without his demands, and that most South Dakota renters enjoy something even better than government hand-outs: a job.:
Gov. Noem Blocks Telemedicine Abortions in South Dakota
PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem signed Executive Order 2021-12, which directs the South Dakota Department of Health to establish rules preventing telemedicine abortions in South Dakota. The executive order also restricts chemical abortions in the state.
“The Biden Administration is continuing to overstep its authority and suppress legislatures that are standing up for the unborn to pass strong pro-life laws. They are working right now to make it easier to end the life of an unborn child via telemedicine abortion. That is not going to happen in South Dakota,” said GovernorNoem. “I will continue working with the legislature and my Unborn Child Advocate to ensure that South Dakotaremains a strong pro-life state.”
The executive order restricts telemedicine abortion in the following ways:
Declares that abortion drugs may only be prescribed or dispensed by a physician who is licensed in South Dakota after an in-person examination;
Blocks abortion-inducing drugs from being provided via courier, delivery, telemedicine, or mail service;
Prevents abortion-inducing drugs from being dispensed or provided in schools or on state grounds; and
Reiterates that licensed physicians must ensure that Informed Consent laws are properly administered.
The executive order also directs the Department of Health to do the following:
Develop licensing requirements for “pill only” abortion clinics;
Collect empirical data on how often chemical abortions are performed as a percentage of all abortions, including how often women experience complications that require a medical follow-up; and
Enhance reporting requirements on emergency room complications related to chemical abortion.
“We commend Governor Noem for taking this bold action that will save lives from dangerous chemical abortions, which have a fourfold higher rate of complications compared to surgical abortion,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of Susan B. Anthony List. “The Biden administration would turn every post office and pharmacy into an abortion center if they had their way, leaving women alone and at risk of severe heavy bleeding, physical, emotional, and psychological stress, and more. States must take action. Governor Noem is setting a courageous model today that we hope more state leaders across the nation will soon follow.”
“I applaud Governor Noem’s action today to stop dangerous chemical abortion drugs from being mailed to South Dakota women,” said Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO of Americans United for Life. “This is no longer about ‘a woman and her doctor,’ but a woman – or girl – and a stranger on the internet. States can no longer depend on the FDA to regulate abortion drugs in any meaningful way, and I am pleased to see Governor Noem step up for her state. Abortion is never safe, but it’s far more dangerous when women are abandoned by physicians and left to manage their complications alone.”
Governor Noem plans to work with the South Dakota legislature to pass legislation that makes these and other protocols permanent in the 2022 legislative session.
From Twitter via the Argus Leader, Avera Health is reportedly joining Sanford Health in requiring doctors and other employees to be vaccinated against COVID:
Avera Health will require full vaccination for its physicians, employees and volunteers by Dec. 1, the healthcare system announced Tuesday. https://t.co/eeYVKJrIJW
South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Dan Lederman had some words about Citizens for Liberty lobbyist Tonchi Weaver over her attacks on South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem which were covered in a recent Rapid City Journal Column:
In a recent column, Citizens for Liberty lobbyist Tonchi Weaver spent a good number of column inches attacking Governor Kristi Noem for allowing people to exercise self-determination. Weaver tried to claim some great conspiracy of the Governor’s when the COVID epidemic first hit when Kristi suggested in an executive order that the sick and elderly take COVID seriously and stay home for three weeks to help flatten the curve of death and severe illness. In that same executive order, Kristi also suggested people wash their hands and eat well-balanced meals.
I feel compelled to tell people that despite Weaver’s alarmist column, no one who failed to wash their hands or who ate an extra dessert when COVID first hit was unjustly persecuted by the state.
The simple truth is that Governor Kristi Noem has valued and done her utmost to preserve individual rights during one of the most challenging episodes in our nation’s history. She did so at the onset of a pandemic for which there was no preventative treatment, and she continues to do so now after our nation has developed vaccines which are effective in preventing COVID for most who receive them.
and..
Liberty is defined as the ability to follow one’s own will to achieve their potential. Maybe Citizens for Liberty should actually follow the word in their title.
I have a few campaign items that came home from the State Fair.
Unfortunately, for US Senate Candidate Mark Mowry, it looks like it could be an expensive state fair for him (and his hat.)
While his campaign card does picture Mowry in his ubiquitous black hat that seems to go everywhere with him, it what his campaign material lacks that’s going to get him in trouble. And besides the fact that it’s just a god-awful pile of gobbledygook, the problem is that it completely lacks the disclaimer required by Federal Election Law:
Any public communication made by a political committee—including communications that do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate or solicit a contribution—must display a disclaimer. Furthermore, disclaimers must also appear on political committees’ internet websites that are available to the general public, and in certain email communications. Political committees must also include additional information on their solicitations.
As explained on this page, in addition to the requirements for public communications, printed communications, radio and television communications (or any broadcast, cable or satellite transmission) may have additional requirements.
Disclaimers must be “clear and conspicuous” regardless of the medium in which the communication is transmitted. A disclaimer is not clear and conspicuous if it is difficult to read or hear, or if its placement is easily overlooked.
The problem is that literally none of his communications have the required disclaimer in the manner prescribed by the federal government. Not the materials he hands out, nor his website, which has a disclaimer, but not as required.
How expensive is the price of poker in that situation? Well, it’s not good:
On February 27, the FEC announced that former Congressman Martin Frost’s campaign committee would pay a $6,000 civil penalty for failing to include the proper disclaimers on printed communications.
The FEC began its analysis of the campaign literature by noting that each mailing contained a disclaimer, “Paid for by the Martin Frost Campaign Committee,” that properly identified the sponsor.
and..
Finally, the Commission’s regulations provide that disclaimers on printed, public communications must be contained in “a printed box set apart from the other contents of the communication.” Because the disclaimer in the Frost committee’s mailings was not set apart in such a box, the FEC found that the committee had violated the law.
So in this case, they HAD the disclaimer, but it cost them a staggering $6000 because THEY FORGOT THE BOX around the disclaimer. (That’s an expensive darn box!)
But in Mowry’s case, he’s omitted the disclaimer in its entirety.
Are business owners in danger of being pushed to the side as some politicians attempt to appeal to populist elements on COVID vaccination?
In 1946, a state constitutional amendment was passed to prohibit a person’s right to work from being “denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union, or labor organization.” Since then, state laws have continued to promote a laissez faire stance towards business, including provisions that labor unions cannot demand that an employer hire certain employees and not others.
Yet many years later in 2021, a movement has begun in the South Dakota House of Representatives to appeal to a populist brand of politics that considers businesses and their owners as subordinate to the demands of workers. Representing a continued wedge being driven by some conservative elements of the Republican Party who at times view business owners derisively as ‘elitist,’ and ‘chamber of commerce’ types who somehow oppose the interest of their concept of a working man, COVID politics threaten to increase the rift between economic conservatives and business owners who have traditionally been allied forces in Republican politics.
While the battleground has been previously waged in areas such as tax increment finance districts, or TIFs, or qualify of life/public amenity projects to draw business growth, the latest battleground might be one of the most fiercely fought ones – whether businesses have the right to consider an employee’s vaccination status as an element of their employment.
In recent weeks, conservative lawmakers such as Rep. Scott Odenbach (R-Spearfish), Rep. Taffy Howard (R- Rapid City), Jon Hansen (R-Dell Rapids) and Speaker of the House Spencer Gosch (R-Mobridge) have advocated and prepared proposals which would discourage private employers from COVID vaccine requirements, outlaw them, or hide the health status of employees from those who place them in public forward positions.
South Dakota State Representative Scott Odenbach argued in favor of the measures, pointing out that we already limit what business owners can do, noting “South Dakota is arguably the most pro-business state in the country, and that’s a good thing and we should keep it that way. But it is up to policy makers to strike the balance between the needs of business and the rights of individuals within Constitutional limitations.”
The conservative firebrands making these proposals have been met with criticism, as when Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck quipped “They can wait and have their bills killed in January. We don’t need a special session.”
The business community also has the support of one of the State’s most powerful political figures, Governor Kristi Noem. After the legislators began demanding a special session, the Governor launched a fusillade of criticism via social and traditional media against those who sought to bring a solution to what they saw as a problem that needed immediate government intervention, terming the proposals as “not conservative.”
As reported by South Dakota Public Broadcasting, Governor Noem noted in some of the sharpest criticism to date during her time as Governor that “It is not conservative to tell businesses what to do and how to treat their employees. Most of the Republican legislators get that in South Dakota—they get that. But, there are the vocal few, like Jon Hansen and Scott Odenbach, who are chasing headlines and are trying to tell South Dakotans how to do business. They want to make government bigger and more powerful in your life. It’s like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Businesses have been cool to the proposals as well, according to South Dakota Retailers Association Director Nathan Sanderson. According to Sanderson, “The South Dakota Retailers Association has long supported the right of business owners to determine the practices and policies best-suited for their own business and employees. The vast majority of South Dakota businesses are not mandating vaccinations for their employees, or even considering doing so, but a business owner should have the right to make the decision based on their own circumstances.”
Politicians battling over the issue aside, is South Dakota set to become a hotbed of employers demanding that their employees be vaccinated? According to industry leaders, not really. And if they are considering a requirement to do so, they are looking at such requirements with great caution. Nathan Sanderson points out that this is not a new topic for businesses as the months have gone by under the shadow of COVID and the employment market is a significant factor in how business owners determine what’s best for them.
“We’ve been talking with our members about this topic for months and featured a three-page FAQ in our February|March Retail Prophet magazine so that members could consider all the potential ramifications of implementing a vaccine mandate. One key consideration right now is, of course, the workforce shortage, and given the widespread need for workers I don’t think we’ll see widespread COVID-19 vaccination requirements as a condition of employment,” Sanderson said.
And it’s not just retailers who are treading cautiously on COVID vaccination requirements for employees. South Dakota’s health care organizations are acting with caution. As noted by Tim Rave, President/CEO of the South Dakota Association of Healthcare Organizations, his group “has members on both sides of the issue,” and “we respect the rights of all our members having the freedom to make the decision that works best for them, their employees, and most importantly their patients.”
Both businesses and legislators will be avoiding the question of vaccination restrictions on employees until next January, with neither the Governor nor the State Senate willing to call a Special Session for the topic.
Senator Lee Schoenback recently pointed out that the “phrase ‘special session’ has been getting thrown around like parade candy lately.” And while legislators will be gathering in October for a special session for redistricting, there will be no discussion of vaccinations, as the state’s Legislative Research Council pointed out in the same article that “The only legislation that can be passed is what is detailed in the proclamation.”
Until then, we will continue to see posturing from those trying to appeal to what they see as a base of voters, as well as others postulating that “that government is best which governs least” in an ongoing appeal for the hearts and minds of South Dakotans.
In a recent column, 
