The Primary Election is coming soon in South Dakota, do you know which candidates represent your values? We can help!
First, for the candidates who are running for re-election, you can check their Legislative Scores on the FHA Action scorecards to see how they line up with the positions of FHA Action.
HB1096 is an act to stop the business of commercial surrogacy in South Dakota. Commercial surrogacy is a practice that a New York task force previously labeled as “indistinguishable from the buying and selling of children.”
Below is a video of Jennifer Lahl and Kelly Martinez giving testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee in South Dakota. Jennifer Lahl is a widely recognized expert on the topic of surrogacy, and Kelly Martinez is a mother from the Custer area who has been taken advantage of by abusive surrogacy contracts.
HB1057 failed in Senate Health & Human Services Committee on a 5-2 vote.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 1/14/2020
New South Dakota bill protects children from harmful drugs, surgeries and treatments Rep. Fred Deutsch and 46 co-sponsors introduce Vulnerable Child Protection Act Tuesday
PIERRE, S.D. – Rep. Fred Deutsch Tuesday introduced the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, a bill to prevent medical harm against children struggling with questions about their identity.
Deutsch, who represents South Dakota’s 4th District, is a
civic leader who has devoted his life to protecting and helping children
– as a school board member, in his work with the Boys and Girls Club,
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and now as a legislator. The Vulnerable
Child Protection Act’s singular objective is to shield children from
harm.
“Every child in South Dakota should be protected from dangerous drugs
and treatments,” said Deutsch. “The solution for children’s
identification with the opposite sex isn’t to poison their bodies with
mega-doses of the wrong hormones, to chemically or surgically castrate
and sterilize them, or to remove healthy breasts and reproductive
organs. The solution is compassionate care, and that doesn’t include
catastrophically and irreversibly altering their bodies.”
No studies have shown that these drugs and procedures are safe for
children, but the permanent harm they can do is undeniable. However,
parents are frequently given inaccurate, incomplete, and sometimes false
information about the dangers of these treatments.
“Parents are further told that these treatments are well-studied,
safe, and necessary. They are warned that if they do not consent to
medical treatment, their child will be at higher risk of suicide,” said
Deutsch. “But there’s no evidence to support this claim. Kids who are
contemplating suicide require evaluation and treatment for conditions
such as depression and anxiety. Castration, hysterectomies, puberty
blockers and high dose hormones are not treatments for psychological
conditions.”
The hasty intervention for children who are unsure of their identity
ignores the experiences of the vast majority of young people. The
Vulnerable Child Protection Act will prevent clinics and practitioners
from pushing children and their parents to the point of no return.
“An ever-increasing number of people who had so called sex
reassignment as minors now find themselves regretting the decision as
they’ve matured. Performing irreversible sex reassignment on a minor
whose brain is still developing is wrong,” Deutsch continued. “But we
can try to prevent harm to those who may later regret it by hitting the
pause button before someone pushes a child into a mistake today that
cannot be corrected tomorrow.”
Want a birds-eye view of the legislation FHA Action took a position on during the 2019 legislative session?
This year we put together a report card to compile the results and show you what happened to each piece of legislation. Click the download button below!
Every year we put together a scorecard to show how each legislator voted on the issues FHA Action took a position on during the Legislative Session. Click the link below to see how your legislator scored!
“The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.” -Ronald Reagan
Resolutions passed by the Legislature have no weight of law, but simply send a message from the body. Here is one from week 9 that deserves the spotlight:
HR1006 “Recognizing the deleterious effects of gambling and video lottery.”
A RESOLUTION, Recognizing the deleterious effects of gambling and video lottery.
WHEREAS, at the time of statehood, in 1889, the framers of the Constitution of South Dakota recognized the dangers inherent in gambling and sagaciously prohibited the activity under any pretense or for whatever purpose; and
WHEREAS, approximately a century later, an insatiable desire for revenue opened the door to gambling, including a lottery that is devoted to the operation of state government and then video lottery; and
WHEREAS, more than 1,300 video lottery casinos are now situated across this state; and
WHEREAS, video lottery annually contributes between eighty-eight and one hundred ten million dollars to the coffers of this state, thereby accounting for six to seven percent of the state’s annual revenue; and
WHEREAS, video lottery is often referred to as the crack cocaine of gambling because it is recognized as the most addictive form of gambling; and
WHEREAS, South Dakota is now estimated to have between 13,000 and 26,000 pathological gamblers; and
WHEREAS, South Dakota now has the undesirable distinction of being ranked second in the nation with respect to gambling addiction; and
WHEREAS, research indicates that the annual cost to a state for each pathological gambler is in excess of fourteen thousand dollars; and
WHEREAS, crime statistics confirm significant increases in armed robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, and family violence, as well as suicide, since the institution of video lottery; and
WHEREAS, since the institution of video lottery, the exorbitant and ever-increasing social costs associated with this form of gambling have taken their toll both directly and indirectly on individuals, on families, on our businesses and communities, and on the health and well being of our state:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Ninety-Fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, that the Legislature recognizes the deleterious effects of gambling and particularly of video lottery and that the Legislature invites and encourages the Governor and representatives of various public and private sector entities to join together for the purpose of responsibly reducing and ultimately eliminating this state’s reliance on revenues that are generated through the video lottery and other forms of addictive gambling.
In case you missed them in the e-news or Facebook posts, here are the Allies Update videos we posted during the 2019 Legislative Session! Please note, we have many friends and allies at the Capitol and this is not meant to be an exclusive list!
HB1225 requires the SDHSAA to use the birth certificate of a student as the determinant of their eligibility, even if the student identifies with the opposite sex team. Why is this needed?
2 Problems with males playing on female teams:
Fairness. Generally speaking, males are taller and stronger than females, and allowing a student who is biologically male to compete against a female could pose an unfair advantage.
Exclusion. If a student who is biologically male is allowed to compete in an athletic competition that is designated for females, then in almost every situation there will be a female who would have filled that spot, but was excluded by a male from a competition that was designed for her.
What We Need -Students who believe that participation on boys and girls teams should be decided based on the student’s sex, not which gender they identify with. -Coaches who recognize the harms of allowing students to compete on athletic teams that do not match their sex. -Parents who are concerned about protecting the safety of students and passionate about maintaining opportunities for female students to compete.
Family
Heritage Alliance Action opposes Senate
Joint Resolution 2.
While
the prospect of a new untapped revenue stream for our state is attractive, it requires
a Constitutional amendment to do so. Constitutional amendments should be
proposed with extreme scrutiny beforehand.
We
have already authorized both destination gambling and video lottery gambling
and as a result South Dakota is regrettably already dependent on the revenue
from those gambling sources. Now we are considering the further expansion of
gambling should this proposed amendment be approved.
With
each expansion of gambling comes a human price, as more will be attracted to
the lure of winning but too many of them will fall victim to their addiction.
And with each expansion of gambling, the State of South Dakota will become
further addicted to the revenue realized.
While
SJR 2 will only place the amendment on the ballot in 2020 and the expansion
will be limited to Deadwood and Native American casinos, in short order
gambling on literally thousands of events will be authorized.
There
is also the danger that we are at the beginning of changing the entire paradigm
of sports as well.
In
the early days of Major League Baseball gambling became a problem. New York
Giant’s stars Hal Chase and Heinie Zimmerman were both blacklisted for bribing
teammates to throw games. And most famously, the White Sox “fixed” the 1919
World Series. In both cases, sports betting was the cause.
Back
then, it took a couple of hundred dollars to bribe a ballplayer. These days we
would struggle to imagine what it would take to convince a ballplayer making
millions of dollars a year to throw a game. However, amateur athletes or
college athletes could be bought more cheaply.
Finally,
the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, did not speak to the legality of sports
betting. It specifically ruled that one
particular federal gambling statute, the Professional and Amateur Sports
Protection Act, violated the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
because it illegally empowered the federal government to order certain states
to take specific actions to disallow sports gambling. In fact, as noted in its
ruling, if Congress were to pass a statute to directly ban sports gambling;
such a bill would likely survive legal scrutiny.
If this SJR 2 is approved by the voters, is the state
betting that the Federal Government will not ban it?
