| | | Sadly, another woman we counted on has RINO-wimped out. I wanted to move to South Dakota because she was governor. Now this:
South Dakota Governor Noem Draws Conservative’s Ire After Sending Transgender Sports Bill Back To Legislature
March 21, 2021
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has been a Republican superstar and someone who has been deemed by many as a possible contended for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, but that has changed.
The governor committed an act of betrayal in the eyes of many of her supporters when she effectively neutered a bill that she claimed to support that would protect women’s sports from those who are male but identify as female, PJ Media reported.
“We are extremely disappointed to see Gov. Noem break her word on this critical legislation,” Terry Schilling who serves as the president of the American Principles Project said. “Gov. Noem’s veto would scrap the vast majority of the bill text and would strip protections for female athletes in collegiate sports in the state. Additionally, it would eliminate all reasonable enforcement mechanisms, neutering the legislation so much as to render it meaningless.”
“All the while, Noem continues to claim dubiously that she still supports the bill, hoping South Dakotans will ignore the fact she was responsible for killing it,” he said.
That sentiment was shared by many conservatives on Twitter, many of whom had been supporters of the South Dakota governor.
“What a huge mistake ~ I’m talked to several cons who have written her off. You can’t betray the base. Period. Gov. Kristi Noem ‘Misusing Her Executive Power’ in Sending Back Bill Banning Trans Athletes from Women Sports,” Kurt Schlichter said.
“I’m done with Noem. That bill was a no brainer but she RINO’d out and capitulated to the woke mob,” John Cardillo said.
But the governor has defended her decision, arguing that she still supports the legislation but said it was too broad.
“Since Nov, I’ve been exploring litigation to defend Title IX and fairness in girls’ sports at ALL levels. To pursue that strategy, I’m asking legislators to pass a new bill on Veto Day, or I will call a special session. Let’s protect girls’ sports & fix the concerns with 1217,” she said.
And she explained her concerns in her letter to state legislators.
I believe that boys should play boys’ sports, and girls should play girls’ sports. As the legislative findings in the original version of the bill set out, “[w]ith respect to biological sex, one is either male or female[,]” and “[p]hysiological differences between males and females include ‘those most important for success in sport: categorically different strength, speed, and endurance.’”
That is why House Bill 1217 properly provides that females should have opportunities to play youth sports on teams comprised of females and against teams of females. Unfortunately, as I have studied this legislation and conferred with legal experts over the past several days, I have become concerned that this bill’s vague and overly broad language could have significant unintended consequences.
For example, Section 2 of House Bill 1217 requires a student athlete to verify, each year, that the student “is not taking and has not taken, during the preceding twelve months, any performance enhancing drugs, including anabolic steroids.”
Presumably, this requirement was included to address a student taking these drugs as a part of a gender transition, but House Bill 1217 is not limited in this way. Rather, if a male student athlete failed to make the football team, and later learned that another student on the team was taking steroids without disclosing it, the student who didn’t make the team would be entitled to sue both the school and the steroid-using student for damages.
In addition, Section 2 creates an unworkable administrative burden on schools, who under its terms must collect verification forms from every student athlete, every year, as to age, biological sex, and use of performance-enhancing drugs; and furthermore must monitor these disclosures throughout the year so that if “reasonable cause” is found of a false or misleading form, the school can take action to avoid civil liability.
I am also concerned that the approach House Bill 1217 takes is unrealistic in the context of collegiate athletics. In South Dakota, we are proud of our universities’ athletic programs, and in particular the great strides we have taken to gain national exposure and increase opportunities for our next generation over the past two decades.
South Dakota has shown that our student athletes can compete with anyone in the country, but competing on the national stage means compliance with the national governing bodies that oversee collegiate athletics. While I certainly do not always agree with the actions these sanctioning bodies take, I understand that collegiate athletics requires such a system – a fifty-state patchwork is not workable. |
|
