State Rep. Scott Odenbach provides his rationale for pressing for special session for COVID legislation

@SoDakCampaigns

From Facebook, State Representative Scott Odenbach provides his side of why he is pressing for a special session to prevent employers from requiring vaccinations:

40 thoughts on “State Rep. Scott Odenbach provides his rationale for pressing for special session for COVID legislation”

  1. More Communist control. Microsoft Edge blocked the page with Scott Odenbach’s reasons. Our First Amendment rights are being taken from us.

    2. I was able to open it with the Google browser. Thank you. I do agree with Mr. Odenbach. How can we trust a test made in China for a virus developed in China ? The vaccine has not been fully tested unless, as one pharmacist says, half of the people getting the jab are not receiving the “vaccine” but something else? Yes, the citizens are being used as lab rats!

    3. Ffs, when are you going to understand that the first amendment prevents the GOVERNMENT from prior restraint on speech, not website owners. At what point are people gonna stop screaming “MUH FURST AMUNDMUNT” when it isnt relevant? Nearly half my posts are deleted here, but that is up to the site owner (even as he lambasts twitter for the same behavior). Read up on the first amendment, granny, and what it means.

  2. That’s Arizona.

    You can. But you can’t.

    Montana isn’t any better when the same people that control the vaccines control the FDA (follow the revolving door).

    Don’t get me started on North Dakota’s feckless appeasement.

    Can South Dakota do any better after assessment of investment and robust intellectually honest debate.

    I think we need to end the medical tyranny and get back to more sensible healthcare focused on nutrition, health outcomes, emergency care when required.

    A bad business plan: Losing billions to make drugs to help people fed on terrible food to help ease arterial degeneration so big pharma can make their nut.

    F-

    1. You have zero interest in debate. Whenever anyone calls you out on your misreading of studies, or straight up lying about them, you refuse to respond and instead move on to other threads where the cycle repeats itself. If healthy debate is what you want, act that way

          1. So you respond to the post agreeing with me, but not the substantive one. You are a complete and utter coward, John. If your beliefs are so solid, defend them and stop running every time someone confronts you.

      2. I have absolutely no control over your keyboard, R.

        When has someone called me out successfully on misleading studies?

        I can’t keep track of all of the hundreds of comments generated by my columns, but if you have one that you feel is particularly stinging, bring it to my attention and I’ll address it (like Pat did, God bless him).

        Might it be the case that my arguments and associated premises and data presented in the flow of argumentation are .. just that good and as such very difficult to successfully rebuke, and that is the source of your consternation?

        Sincerely,

        John

        1. Yeah, I’m sure that is what everyone is thinking. “This John Dale makes foolproof arguments” and not “John Dale needs help from the mental health community.”

  3. Is it true that the FDA approval was for the first two jabs?

    If so, since the first two jabs don’t work against unicorn-like Delta variant, how would FDA approval make a difference in the decision?

    This is an experiment without informed consent that is causing death and injury with a callous disregard for human life.

    It is reasonable to prosecute employers who follow through with the mandate.

    1. Why are you asking questions? I could find those answers in 15 seconds… Ohhh yeah, if you knew or know the answers you couldn’t make a claim wrapped in a question? Or maybe you don’t know how to find the answers.

      2. “I could find those answers in 15 seconds”

        Are you interested in doing an Internship with Plains Tribune?

        I could use that kind of skill.

  4. Conservatives believe in small government. Not using the government to force their beliefs into private business owners. That’s big government.

    Jon Hansen has veered over this line before, such as when he tries to regulate surrogacy. That’s not small government. It’s using government to impose a worldview.

    We only have two parties. If we had 5 parties, Jon Hansen and Scott Odenbach would be Christian Democrats – using the government to push a worldview. Kristi Noem would be a Libertarian – not like the crazy ones we have, but simply a person who is actually committed to small, limited government.

    It’s a legitimate debate, and both perspectives try to claim the tag “conservative.”

    1. “Conservatives believe in small government. Not using the government to force their beliefs into private business owners. That’s big government.”

      What if the belief in question is that murder, assault, negligent homicide are all wrong?

      The false premise is that these 1) are vaccines and 2) that they work.

      Because both of these are demonstrably false – especially when compared to good diet, exercise, and appropriate micronutrients – mandating them is like mandating that a firefighter take his PPE off in the midst of a fire.

      I don’t think we should make any new laws per se. Perhaps it would be enough for South Dakota law enforcement to take a stance that mandating an employee take poison is premeditated attempted murder. Subsequently, if an employer mandates the jab and someone dies from it (blood clotting, manifest immunodeficiency, heart attacks), pursue murder charges against the administration/employer that mandated them.

      The same goes for autism and past vaccines.

      I would love to hear about any other creative solutions people have, and I would be honored to have anyone on the show that has an idea, no matter how seemingly crazy our fringe.

  5. I think it is rich the Governor who vetoed the trans gender sports bill is calling Hansen and Odenbach not conservative.

    Hansen has been fighting for family values legislation his entire career and Odenbach is as conservative as they get.

    1. translation = He thinks businesses should be told by government who to hire and keep… What governmental system controls industry?

      That tells us what kind of government the so-called conservatives want for this country..

      1. The employer doesn’t have the right to force the employee to do that. They do have the right to ask the employee to do that. If the employee doesn’t want to, the employee should have the right to quit and the employer should have the right to fire.

        There’s no principled reason choices shouldn’t have consequences.

  7. I believe Shakespeare addressed this with “me thinks he does protest too much”. Want to be called conservative, just be one

    2. Hi Mr. Schoenbeck;

      So, to be a conservative we revoke criminal law and allow a person’s family to seek vigilante justice against the administration of Sanford and other firms who mandate an employee subject themselves to assault and/or negligent homicide?

      “Just be one” – is that Nike’s new shoe slogan, directed to the slave labor they manage?

      Slave labor is the new conservatism.

      Fascinating when the argument (to the extent I could fine one) is extended.

      John

  9. Currently, no employer may require a person to have a drug test or take a vaccine.

    In this “at will employment” (both the employee and employer can sever employment for any reason or no reason) state, if an employer makes a drug test or vaccine a condition of employment, the employee can sever the employment without taking either the drug test or vaccine. In other words, both have freedom.

    For Onthebackofbusiness and Son of Hans to advocate this is just another example of statists wanting to make the world in their image rather than letting free people make their own world.

    1. In order to work with PlainsTribune.com, you have to stick a sharpie up your nose until it draws blood.

      It’s not for any realistic purpose in particular, but just because we know the Sharpie guys and they need some sales to make up for decreased sales volumes from the pandemic. They have a lot of extra sharpies and it would be a shame for them to dry up and become useless before being used as nose probes.

      Another extension of the argument that demonstrates how existing law might apply.

      1. So the employees refuse and either PlainsTribune.com backs down or fires them. Do you have a point?

  10. It was quite predictable that the people who said they wouldn’t take a vaccine which lacks full FDA approval are now saying the FDA has been corrupted by Pfizer.

    The issue of state involvement in the controversy is similar in a way to the transgender issue: Gender dysphoria is a psychiatric delusion. It’s not real and the state government should not validate it.

    The hysteria over the Covid vaccine also has its origins in delusional thinking and should not be validated either. If the state enacts legislation prohibiting employers from requiring the vaccine, the lunatics will declare it is “proof” that it is dangerous. If the Governor were to sign such a bill they would claim it “proves” she “knows” just how terrible the vaccine is.

    Our legislature should not go there.

    1. I agree and disagree with you. First: there is literally NOTHING on the face of this earth that could convince some of these anti-vaxxers they are wrong. And this is kinda the problem: we are attempting to use logic to convince people whose beliefs aren’t based on logic, but paranoia and facebook. I am quickly approaching the point where I think America is pretty weak because politics permeates every decision we make, rather than evidence. That being said: I hope the legislature does not feed into this insanity. I’m not confident.

      1. Anonymous at 2:48
        No vaccine is 100% effective because people’s immune systems have varying responses to them. We are not 100% the same. With every vaccine there are known “breakthrough” cases.

        And RNA viruses are trickier than DNA viruses because they mutate so rapidly.

        That being said, the proof is in because statistically the vaccines have succeeded in reducing the severity of the infections as well as the incidence. I would bet my house on that.

        Healthcare employers are going to be in even deeper crap if they get sued because a patient went in for an unrelated procedure and caught covid from an unvaccinated staff member.

        You guessed wrong.

      2. It does help prevent it. Infection rates are demonstrably lower for the vaccinated and breakthroughs are far less severe. If you need cites, let me know and I can get them for you.

  11. Both supporters are lawyers, they should know better. But then again so is Sidney Powell.

Comments are closed.