South Dakota Chamber opposes outlawing elective transgender surgeries & other procedures on minors. But not all businesses agree.

@SoDakCampaigns

After House Bill 1057 came out of the gate with over 40 sponsors, on Friday the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce joined the ACLU in opposing the bill which would outlaw elective transgender surgeries and hormonal therapies for minors:

The South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry announced Friday that it will oppose a bill that makes it a felony for doctors to provide gender confirmation surgeries and services to minors.

and…

“South Dakota is home to a growing number of national and international businesses, including banks, research firms, manufacturers and health care systems, that believe workplaces and communities need to be inclusive and use the talents of everyone,” said David Owen, the chamber’s president. “When South Dakota considers draconian rules that affect a limited number of people, we run the risk of triggering economic consequences that include the loss of conventions, tournaments, top-level entertainment and business investment from outside industries.”

Read the entire story here.

The Chamber’s position echoes their stance on past bills regulating mixed gender use of bathrooms and locker rooms last session.  The business group’s opposition is based on the “risk of triggering economic consequences,” and a stated belief that “workplaces and communities need to be inclusive.”

Interestingly, the group does not seem to be aligning with the views of major insurers, many of whom consider reaching the age of majority as a requirement for the gender reassignment surgeries being medically necessary and eligible for coverage.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield (of Tennessee), notes in part:

MEDICAL APPROPRIATENESS

  • Gender reassignment surgery or gender reassignment surgery reversal is considered medically appropriate if ALL of the following are met:
    • Individual is 18 years or older
    • Individual has the capacity to make a fully informed consent to treatment

Read that here.

Aetna has a similar guideline for coverage under their policy:

Requirements for gonadectomy (hysterectomy and oophorectomy in female-to-male and orchiectomy in male-to-female):

  1. Two referral letters from qualified mental health professionals, one in a purely evaluative role (see appendix); and
  2. Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria (see Appendix); and
  3. Capacity to make a fully informed decision and to consent for treatment; and
  4. Age of majority (18 years or older); and

Read that here.

Anthem/Unicare limits sex-reassignment surgery based on reaching the age of majority, Cigna does as well, as does Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota.

And interestingly, as recently as 2017, available materials note that Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield – One of South Dakota’s most prominent health insurance carriers noted to plan subscribers:

Policy: 

Qualifications for all gender reassignment treatments:

  • Single letter of referral from a qualified mental health professional; and
  • Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria (per DSM V criteria below); and
  • Capacity to make a fully informed decision and to consent for treatment; and
  • 18 years of age or older; and 
  • If significant medical or mental health concerns are present, they must be reasonably well controlled.

Read that here.

In fact, a cursory search reveals many if not most insurers when issuing guidelines for coverage for surgical procedures being considered medically necessary restrict gender reassignment surgery for those who have not reached the age of majority.

The fact that nearly all insurers ban coverage for gender reassignment surgery until the insured is 18 years of age or older may paint the battle for House Bill 1057 in a far different light than the prior dispute over who can use who’s locker room. Because a precedent already appears to exist among insurance companies nationwide.

The question is whether that business decision will be allowed to take form as a matter of public policy when it comes up for discussion before the legislature as a whole.

116 thoughts on “South Dakota Chamber opposes outlawing elective transgender surgeries & other procedures on minors. But not all businesses agree.”

  1. Those who stand with ACLU are dead to me

    1.AFP last year
    2. State Chamber this year

    That is all

    1. If no insurance companies will cover these procedures, then why waste time, money, and possible boycott? Seems like we have another solution in search of a problem!

      1. What happened to parental rights?

        I can’t imagine if my child was going through this and my rights didn’t exist.

        1. Sadly, it’s usually the parent(s) who want this for a child, not the child itself. I call any attempt to alter the gender of a minor child, child abuse.

    2. “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
      — Ronald Reagan

  2. So we should look to the insurance companies to set public health policy?

    Owen is right. This kind of stuff costs us literal millions in lost commerce, just like it costs us in attorneys fees when these laws are declared unconstitutional.

  3. The only concern I had was whether this would apply in the case of babies born with CAH, and according to the bill, it would not. If you wonder what CAH is, please look it up.

    I cant understand why anyone would be against this bill otherwise. It seems morality is out the window in favor of the almighty dollar.

  4. The Chamber of Commerce used to simply be amoral. Their stances are now increasingly immoral.

  5. When I spoke with David Owen a month ago he told me “The Chamber has no business in dealing with medical procedures,” and told me the Chamber would be neutral on the bill.

    Now that the Chamber has changed its mind, I called to ask what had changed. He responded he spoke “inartfully.” When I asked him to clarify what that means he said his position sometimes requires him to speak artfully, but he sometimes fails.

    Regardless, the bill continues to pick up co-sponsors. We are now up from 40 to 47 total; and the bill continues to pick up steam. Why? Because protecting our children from mutilation and sterilization is always the right thing to do.

    See http://www.hb1057.com for more information.

    1. “Inartfull” is a synonym for “I changed my mind from what I told you before but don’t have enough integrity to admit it”.

      The Chamber is all about the Benjamins-to quote the anti-Semitic Omar. They put the dollar first and those of us who don’t should understand that.

      1. “Inartfully” is a synonym for “I lied to your face to get rid of you and now I’ve been caught and called out”

    3. You have no business introducing these ill-inteded measures coming between the informed choices of a parent, child, and their doctor.

      Shocker that the vast majority of Republicans in the state legislative get in line lock-step for some stupid measure because if they didn’t – they’d get blasted from these Right-Wingnut organizations and voted out of office.

      There is little to no moral character left in the State legislature to do what is right and give families the right of choice what’s in the best interest for the child, to give these children the right to freely express who they are.

      When did being a Republican become about telling people what they can or cannot do, rather than giving people opportunities?

      It’s agenda’s like yours, Rep. Deutsch, please also note that the AMA Journal of Ethics also does not come out opposed to puberty blockers, while I have yet to see any of the physicians you site published anywhere other than on their own websites.

      I’ll end with this from the AMA Journal of Ethics:
      …“if allowing puberty to progress appears likely to harm the child, puberty should be suspended” [14]. It would be unethical to allow a patient to suffer through the distress of pubertal development when we have a way of preventing the distress it causes. Children and adolescents who suffer from gender identity disorder face significant physical, psychological, and social challenges, and receiving an inconsistent standard of medical care adds to those challenges. Unfortunately, many clinicians are uncomfortable with the option of puberty suppression for these children, which inhibits their access to care; it is imperative that health care professionals become familiar with this treatment option. As health care professionals, we have an obligation to alleviate suffering—and for our pediatric patients with GID, who are undoubtedly suffering, suppression of puberty is a safe and easy way to begin to do so. Furthermore, if legitimate medical treatment is not available, those with GID will seek it through other channels, which are much more likely to be unsafe and will certainly not involve an appropriate level of monitoring or adjustment to manage complications [10]. This makes it all the more clear that we are professionally duty-bound to provide this treatment to those in need of it.”

      1. You are a sick person. You just basically said you are for child abuse.

        Feel free to take your children to other States to get it done.

        South Dakota will not join you in hell

        1. Because I disagree with this I am a sick person or is it because I don’t think the State has the ability or necessity to put itself between a parents rights to raise their child and a medical provider?

          Do you even know what the process is like to put a child on puberty blockers? It’s more complicated than what has actually been laid out here. Necessitating consults from multiple psychologists and other mental health providers, children are often required to dress/live like the opposite gender, and it’s done overnight but rather over a period of time.

          I 100% guarantee you know nothing of the process, but again my view is the state does not know best about raising a child. If it did, would native children be born into such abject poverty and likely with intergenerational trauma such as addiction?

          1. I don’t need to know the process.

            They can do whatever they want once they hit the age of 18.

            I said you are a sick person because you are advocating for parents being able to commit child abuse.

            1. I’m advocating for medical decisions to be made between a parent, child, and provider.

              You obviously must not be a parent but a keyboard warrior out to troll people.

      2. “There is little to no moral character left in the State legislature to do what is right and give families the right of choice what’s in the best interest for the child, to give these children the right to freely express who they are. ”
        If your kid wants sterilization, then you can forget about grandchildren. How is that in the best interest for families?

        1. Not every person is suited to be a parent. I’ve seen some people around downtown Sioux Falls and Rapid City that could use some sterilization- four and five kids with different fathers, mothers with drug and alcohol problems. I’m tired for paying for other people’s mistakes and stupidity.

          Also, have you forgotten how many children are in the foster care system desperately waiting for loving parents?

          Also, this bill isn’t forcing anyone to be or do anything they aren’t already wanting.

  6. The sterilization thing is easily overlooked, and particularly troubling – to do it to children. I’d be interested in hearing the defense of adults sterilizing kids

  7. I’m so happy to see my friends, Fred and Lee, comment here. Please let everyone in Pierre know that the vast majority of people are supporting them. Do not let the loud voices of the minority keep you from doing what is right.

    1. Oh, Ried. I totally disagree. The majority of people DO NOT support the government getting involved in our bodies.

      1. Mutilating and sterilizing children? One of the highest callings of a legislator is to protect children.

        2. Sorry, I don’t trust the government to protect children. You have been an utter failure at protecting children. In fact you have caused more harm and death to children than protection.

          you=elected official=government

          1. False.

            Democrats and the Supreme Court have killed the most children.

            They have disproportionately killed black children to be specific.

      2. So, Kirsten, do you think the prohibition of child sex trafficking, child porn, selling of your eyes and kidneys or heart, or statutory rape is “the government getting involved in your body” and such prohibitions should be eliminated from the law?

        1. Child porn is a perfect analogue for a family, physician, mental health workers and the juvenile in question meeting and discussing what is best for the kid. No issues here. Good call, Troy.

          1. I agree. A perfect analogy when you consider all the adults in position of trust who have done such terrible things with life-lasting consequences only for the child and too often the financial benefit of the adults.

            For too long we have put too much trust in teachers, Boy/Girl Scout leaders, pastors, doctors and the like and created circles of abuse with child victims in the middle.

            1. Ah, yes. Doctors, social workers, multiple safeguards are the same as child pornographers. You really nailed it and aren’t being disingenuous at all. But remember: the government is bad and not to be trusted unless you are in a moral panic!

                1. No, he makes trash comparisons to stoke moral outrage. Slippery slope arguments are terrible ones.

  8. The chamber is certainly entitled to their position.

    But if that’s the case, I’d be curious to know what the position of the insurance carrier they use on how they cover elective (and that’s a key word) procedures of this nature on minors.

    Shouldn’t they practice what they preach, and cover elective procedures of this nature for the families of their own employees?

    1. The Chamber is way out of it’s lane. They don’t give a sh*t about children, don’t give a sh*t about family values. I’m done supporting them.

    2. I think the Chamber is looking at this issue based on what happened in North Carolina when they started getting involved in LGBT+ issues. When the NCAA threatened to pull tournaments and business from the state causing a huge economic impact.

      I can legitimately see the same thing happening with the Summit league and it being located in the state. Why wouldn’t they do the same thing here like they did there to make a concerted effort for a change in policy.

      Yes I understand and acknowledge that bathrooms are different from transitioning, but both are seen as an attack on a minority population and they’ve already drawn one line in the sand. Think outside of mainstream South Dakota Republican ideology to get the broader perspective.

        1. It’s a private company – what are you going to sue them for? Choosing to business elsewhere that better aligns with their company’s values?

          1. Do Democrats ever get an education?

            The NCAA is a non-profit entity.

            You know what that means right?

            Getting Federal tax breaks and discriminating is not a good plan.

              1. It’s not a private company, therefore it cannot discriminate because of the federal tax dollars it is not paying.

                Let’s take it to the Supreme Court.

                1. Kind of like Churches? They discriminate and get decent tax breaks while operating as non-profits.

                  I don’t trust kids with Catholic priests either – dangerous to their health and well being.

                  1. Not like a church at all. Churches are covered under the 1st Amendment.

                    Where did you go to school?

                    1. If they don’t trust kids with Catholic priests, they certainly couldn’t trust kids with teachers. Though they may be unaware of the sexual abuse committed by a teachers.

                    2. You’re dumb. The 1st amendment protects your ability to express your religion, not the taxes the institution itself pays such as income, employment, and property taxes.

                  2. You’re dumb.The 1st Amendment let’s churches discriminate even though they are non-profit.

                    1. So then you’re advocating for Churches to lose their non-profit status? Perfect! I wonder how much revenue that would generate for the state and for all the small towns around the state?

                      I bet it’d be a windfall!

      2. When we place sports over the sterilization, mutilation, and castration of children, I consider “we” illicit and without merit.

        While I disagreed, I understood the bathroom position, this is a bridge too far. I am glad online sales are now taxed as I’d hate to have my reduced local patronage hurt my State.

  9. Fred, the only.people who have any business saying “our” about a chikd are its parents.

    Why are you interested in protecting strangers’ children? They’re strangers, they don’t matter. I mean, being completely honest, as horrific as sterilization is to think about, the more other people’s kids get mutilayed, sterilized, or just straight up killed, the better off my kids will be: they’ll have less competiton.

    1. Wow, what a cynical viewpoint.

      Now, I support people like AOC deciding not to have children because her children wouldn’t be raised well and would grow up programmed to hate America.

      In your opinion then a parent can make any decision for a child including having your kid drink Jim Jones’ down-home punch with their baloney sammich; that parent should have their parental rights terminated.

      If your post is sarcasm, it is hard to discern that; if it is not, I hope I never run into your kids as they must be some of the most self-centered, egotistical people in the world, unless they didn’t learn from you.

      Having surgery to irreversibly change a child’s body isn’t right, and it isn’t smart; what would a parent say to their kid who wants to have their part re-attached if they change their mind about what they think they are?

  10. I’m done doing business with supporters of the chamber of commerce. First it was they want all illegals to come here and now they think young children need gender surgery. Not sure when they vote on this stuff but supporting criminals and mutilating children needs to end

    1. They are getting to be like Democrats-anything that will advance their agenda is A-Okay! (I am not doing the “Okay” sign while I type, so don’t worry, liberals).

  11. Steve you would have been in the SS killing children say well they aren’t mine why should I care. It wasn’t simply a matter of following orders for people like Steve. Mengele would have recruited Steve in a hurry.

    1. I can’t tell if he is being (not very clearly) sarcastic or not; if he is, he needs to read through his post before he enters it; if he is not being sarcastic, what a jerk.

  13. Mutilating and sterilizing children? One of the highest callings of a legislator is to protect children.

    1. …next thing you’ll do is start calling yourself, and other state legislators, patriots.

      Just curious, you’ve been introducing bills on the trans community at least since 2016 with your failed bathroom bill. What is it with your obsession with the trans community? Could you not carve out some other niche legislative issue to champion?

      It’s like you’re Stace and your noche is the trans community.

      1. There are thousands of SDakotans who support the bills Deutsch has introduced. There are girls who do not want to be forced to share a bathroom with a boy, and many parents who do not want boys in the bath/locker rooms with their daughters. Same thing with sports. Girls should not have to be forced to compete against boys and loose out on awards/scholarships.

  15. I am hoping Steve is using a rhetorical device to make augment Fred’s point.

    And at the risk of being repetitive, we can use Steve’s rhetorical logic to justify allowing parents to use there kids in child porn or as sex objects of pedophiliacs.

    1. Ah, but only if the kid wants to do porn or mingle with pedophiles. I can’t tell if Steve is being sarcastic or not.

  16. There is more risk to children in not being vaccinated or going to school with non-vaccinated kids than the made-up crisis this out-of-state legislation seeks to prevent.

    1. BUT WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE KIDS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST IN NUMBERS > 2!?!?!!?

      And the wedge issues continue to be driven home to prey on South Dakotans’ righteous indignation.

      1. Not sarcastic at all. Strangers are like grass. As long as there’s enough healthy grass on the land to serve as a lawn or pasture or playing field or whatever, whether any particular grass plant in that patch of land lives or dies doesn’t matter. As long as there’s enough people out there to keel the economy running, to keep the goods and services you want available, the only ones who matter as more than replacable widgets are the ones you personally know and like.

        And for all who are criticizing the Chamber of Commerce as exceeding their scope… if the Chamber of Commerce honestly thinks this legislation would trigger a boycott of South Dakota business or industries (in particular tourism) that could harm South Dakotans’ financial well-being, opposing it is keeping to their mission. That’s especially the case if they consider its benefits trivial because so few children’s insurance would cover the procedure in the first place that as a practical matter inability to afford the procesures is already protecting the majority of kids even without the law – something I doubt the potential boycotters would notice (or care about). Or if the Chamber thinks the number of kids who might be mistakenly given the surgeries is too small to matter (if the kid ends up seeking it forthemself once they’re an adukt, it wouldn’t have been a mistake to give it to them as a kid), or because they just don’t care what happens to a small geoup of kids. Most parents don’t want a trans kid, after all, so what percent of children in South Dakota would this even matter for? Is it even half a percent?

  17. Isn’t it more important to address an issue, which IS happening in other areas, before its a problem here?

    1. It’s happening all over. Including SD. Planned Parenthood does it to supplement thier abortion revenue.

  18. Ah yes, good point. What we definitely need is the government to pass laws addressing things that aren’t even an issue. Yup, that’s small government for ya.

    The cognitive dissonance on this website is insane.

    1. It is an issue. It’s called child abuse.

      The Government can decide how old you can be to drive, smoke, drink, and own a gun.

      Show me what company will not come here if it’s passed?

      Another equal but just as important issue if women in high school and College getting screwed because males are competing against them.

  19. Clearly we need more laws for things we acknowledge aren’t even an issue. Good call, Springer.

    Cognitive dissonance is a heck of a drug.

  20. So, Fred Deustch is wrong again. If it is in effect banned (not covered) than why have a law at all. He’s got his role in state government completely wrong. So many of these people go out and call themselves legislators and therefore feel the need to legislate anything and everything. I would hope that one day someone will step up and identify themselves as a REPRESENTATIVE going to Pierre to represent the voters wishes and hold the line on an overreaching state government.

    2. Whether it is covered by insurance or not is a moot point. The super wealthy (who are most likely the only ones to even consider having this done) can pay for it out of pocket and get a discount. This is a good bill because the practice of trying to change the gender of a child is evil, demented, and wrong. Period.

      1. You mean changing the sex of a child right? Gender is determined by the individual.

        Let me break it down even more simply for you Tim.
        Gender is between your ears.
        Sex is between your legs.

        Once you have that concept down, the later half of your post becomes moot other than it being your perspective on the topic.

        1. Your teacher lied to you.

          Not one Conservative cares what you think you are.

          We don’t care if you are a male and think you are a female.

          You are either male or female. That is a fact.

          1. That’s not factually true – there are hermaphrodites in multiple species including in humans, deer, fish… etc.

            Actually I broke down those definitions from the dictionary – I know that may be complicated for you… but it’s factually true.

            Also, aren’t conservatives for limited government? So you want a government just small enough to fit in a doctor’s office or my bedroom, maybe a bathroom?

            1. Your teacher lied again.

              The fact is if you have a uterus you are a female, if you don’t you are a male.

  21. Another reason I am so happy not to be a Chamber member any longer. They get involved in policy fights that have nothing to do with their mission.

  23. Great info on the health insurers, Pat. I wonder where Aflac is at on this? Roger Tellinghuisen represents Aflac and the “Human Rights” Campaign. I’m guessing he’ll argue for HRC that doctors have some sort of yet-to-be discovered constitutional right to mutilate children. (maybe in the “penumbras” — the same place 5 unelected judges found a constitutional right to abortion?) I wonder where his other client, Aflac, shakes out on it? Do lawyer-lobbyists have worry about conflicts of interest between their clients?

  24. There’s a health issue alright and the health of the child is the concern of the State. At what age does one really understand oneself enough to know what he or she is and making an irreversible decision?

    Minors are prohibited from owning guns, smoking, vaping, alcohol, driving, or seeing R-rated movies, but some are arguing they should be trusted to have elective surgery.?

    Human rights should begin with the right to not have others mutilate you, due to a confused self image. We don’t intentionally starve anorexics, for example and this is a similar scenario.

    1. Do you support banning circumcision? That is by definition genital mutilation and a majority of the time done by others without consent.

      The state does not know whats best for a child, the family unit does and they should be the one to decide what actually happens.

      100% think you’re off the mark here Willy

      1. Please do tell us how circumcisions and FGM affect orgasms since you are saying you know so much about this?

        Please explain why each has been done since the beginning of history?

        I’m not holding my breath you will.

        1. It’s a proven fact that a circumcision actually desensitizes the penis by at least a factor of 10. In rare instances it leaves the penis mutilated as well.

          First off – circumcision started off as a ritual and not common practice, then it was used to humiliate war prisoners, then it was used to decrease interncourse and to prevent masterbation by the mid-19th century. It didn’t become an actual medical practice for hygiene until the mid-20th century.

          The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. However, the AAP doesn’t recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. The AAP leaves the circumcision decision up to parents — and supports use of anesthetics for infants who have the procedure.

          Do you not know how to google from either your “smartphone” or computer?

            1. How do you have a debate with someone who doesn’t comprehend basic facts such as definitions?

              FGM also partially or fully desensitizes women’s reproductive organs and is often done out of religious views rather than hygiene.

              Again, are you just ill-informed or lazy?

              1. Circumcision has hygiene reasons and FGM has no hygiene issues.

                Therefore Circumcision has no relevance to the debate we are having now.

                FGM does have relevance to the debate we are having now.

                You are welcome for the education.

                1. FGM has nothing to do with transitioning making it not relevant- it has everything to do with a man controlling a woman’s body and discouraging sexual arousal from her. FGM is not wanted by the female – that’s why it’s called mutilation.

                  Just because you think transitioning is mutilation, doesn’t make it true-

                  Since you have a habit of just randomly posting irrelevant and obscurities, why not take a break from posting for awhile. Your lack of insight is astounding.

                  1. FGM has transformed the females body forever just like transforming does.

                    If a person turns 18 and wants to do that to themselves II am all for it.

                    Since you have a habit of losing the argument, you should step away from the keyboard.

  25. What sex-change advocates never acknowledge is the high percentage of people who undergo trans procedures ultimately regret doing so. No one talks about the immense physical pain and debilitating side-effects of the drug and hormone therapies. Also hush-hush is the high suicide rates for trans people — nine times that of the general population.

    My point is this: Sex-change operations are risky and dangerous. The drugs and hormones are life-altering. As such, the state has a responsibility to set an age requirement.

  26. I am really getting sick and tired of South Dakotans running scared and kissing butt every time some out-of-state far left kook group threatens boycott or whatever ! Daugaard did it to every God-fearing South Dakotan when he threatened veto of the bathrooms-in-school bill a few years ago. Nathan Sanderson of the SD Retailers did to us again last year on the transgender boys on girls sports teams bill. Now Dave Owen of the SD Chamber of Commerce is doing it to us again. Grow a pair you imbeciles !!! What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong !!! Who cares if the Castrated Knitters of Nova Scotia won’t have their convention in Unityville ? Do we really, truly need the kind of people who will threaten us with boycotts as our customers ?Pretty soon every Tom, Dick, and Harry leftist organization in the world will recognize us as a trial State for their lobbying since we are afraid to “offend” anyone ! Stand Strong Fellow Statesmen !

    3. Tim, While I agree with you on the bathroom legislation as the bathroom isn’t a forum for publicly expressing oneself (It is a place for privately discharging waste out of whatever parts one has), I don’t agree these two issues are even close to the same gravity nor equal compelling interest for government involvement and conflating them is a distraction from the issue at hand.

      HB1057 is to protect children from life-long, irreversible consequences (including having children and lifelong hormone treatments which have health consequences not fully understood) and defer such decisions until adulthood where an adult can make their own decision with fullness of understanding of the choice and its consequences.

  27. Ok so our legislators can’t pass a texting ban to protect our teenagers from texting while driving and killing themselves and others. Yet they take up this non-issue so that the ACLU can have their yearly case and waste more of our tax $$ on lawyers and trials.

    Thanks legislators you are doing a great job, hopefully someday your constituents come to their senses and realize you are doing nothing but wasting South Dakota’s $ on non relevant issues.

    1. How is a texting ban going to affect teenagers who aren’t affected by adult laws unless it’s murder?

      1. Do you not realize that texting laws are a secondary offense? Meaning a cop can’t pull you over for texting, its not a primary offense. It affects teenagers by killing them, killing adults and children alike.

        Maybe you won’t realize this until one of your family members dies like mine did. Only I guess will you think its a problem. I hope you don’t have to experience that.

        So please show factual evidence where this proposed laws actually is problem. Because if you don’t think that texting and driving is actually a REAL problem then you need your head examined.

      1. Facts, lets see the instances of all of this child abuse happening. Surely if its a REAL problem people would be speaking up about all of the instances of this happening. Let’s see it go ahead and post away all of the testimony from people its affected.

    1. Are you seriously comparing ear piercing to this?

      The intellectual dishonesty is strong in you.

      Would you call it child abuse if a parent pierced the ears ten times on each side of a toddler?

  29. The people leading the Chamber of Commerce are once again putting dollars ahead of children and morality. Besides, the secular progressives who hate traditional values and everyone who holds them already have in their mind many reasons not to have their conventions in South Dakota. The passage or rejection of HB 1057 will not have an impact one way or another on commerce, but its passage will protect innocent children.

  30. We don’t enforce the laws in place now. Texting and driving, without a new law, is reckless at worst and careless at best. Every accident and every ticketed event should at least carry over into the cell of the driver and be punished at a multiple cost of the ticketing event if found to be texting while driving.
    It does occur to me as I’m listening to this cacophony, life changing events have happened in many lives here, or should have.

    1. Completely agree Jack. Our legislators couldn’t pass a texting law as a primary offense a few years ago, yet they decide to “protect the children” with a law like this!?! Please help me to understand where this transgender problem has come from? Because I sure see no instances of it at all anywhere in our state.

      Doctor’s take an oath “to do no harm”. So I guess legislators think that they are above the hippocratic oath that every M.D. takes. Or maybe this is just the case of the Catholic chiropractor trying to push his own morality, again on the state of South Dakota.

      Those supporting this law please show factual evidence that it actually is a problem. If it were such an issue surely there would be doctor’s, patients, parents, teachers, nurses……….anyone speaking out about.

      I think the Chamber of Commerce is doing the exact right thing in opposing these kind of nanny laws. The very same kind of nanny laws that republicans love to cite when they see something they don’t like. Yet here they are pushing a nanny law through. Where is the republican party that I know.

      This is the kind of crap that weakens our party, pushes people towards becoming democrats. Because one of one legislators intolerance for transgender people. Truly sad that we elected people like this.

  31. The South Dakota Chamber has a serious problem with principles, logic, and leadership.

    Here’s what Joe Rogan has to say (and he’s spot-on):

    “There’s no reason to give kids hormones,” argued Rogan. “And there’s no reason to decide before a person’s frontal lobe is completely fully developed, which doesn’t even take place until they’re 25.

    “People don’t know who they are, a 7-year-old,” he continued, “people don’t even give their 7 year-old phones, you don’t let them vote, you’re gonna let them decide what sex they’re gonna be for the rest of their life?”

    “It’s a simple question,” Rogan responded. “If you say that the child thinks it’s a girl, so you’re gonna give the child hormones, if the child thinks it’s a girl, let it be a girl. Why are you adding hormones?

    “If you’re shooting hormones into a child,” he explained, “and you’re affecting the child’s development, and you’re saying that’s not a choice, that’s nonsense, of course it’s a choice. You’re choosing to chemically change this child’s body.”

    Rogan cited a study that showed that “gender affirmation” surgery led to “considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.”

    “My entire concern is that you’re making decisions for children,” said Rogan, “and that this is a completely new thing with no historical precedent, we’ve never done this before.”

    “When you’re stepping in to a developing baby that’s only been alive for six years, and you’re shooting chemicals into its body to change the way it develops, show me the research!” he demanded forcefully later in the interview.

    “As far as trans athletes go, we could sit here and talk for three hours about, like, all the different ways that hormones might affect your body and your might not affect your body, and I’m not an expert on that… but, a sport with trans athletes who are competing with their gender, right? That is a sporting world that I’m more interested in. I know it’s gonna be really complicated and messy… but I hope that’s the world that we move forward to.”

  32. You quote Joe Rogan? Seriously? Is there a drug that guy has not taken or is not on? Birds of a feather.

    1. “you quote Joe Rogan [drugs]”

      Things are true independent of who is saying them. In your mind, does Joe Rogan have a history of saying things that are patently false or nonsensical?

      Joe Rogan regularly has guests on his show with genius level IQ. He hangs quite well, and does a great job in his analysis.

      If Trump went on his show, it would break The Internet.

      It is a fallacy of reasoning to think that Joe Rogan’s advocacy of “drug” use (most members of congress have taken opioids, nicotine, and alcohol) makes him wrong about the topic. By making this assertion, it is your credibility that suffers, not Rogan’s (if only we knew who you were we could assign credit for such a short sighted response).

Comments are closed.