Posted on 03/22/2021 9:19:35 AM PDT by Presbyterian Reporter
On Friday, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem balked on signing House Bill 1217 when the bill to promote fairness in women’s sports crossed her desk. But instead of vetoing the legislation, Noem returned the bill to the House with what she called “recommendations as to STYLE and FORM.” The Republican governor’s spin, however, cannot withstand scrutiny—most specifically her claimed reasoning for removing collegiate athletics from the bill’s protections.
As finalized by the South Dakota legislature, Section 1 of H.B. 1217 provided that athletic teams and sports in the state, including at institutions of higher education, must be expressly designated as male, female, or coeducation. It also stipulated that teams or sports designed as female must be “available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex.”
After promising to sign H.B. 1217, Noem instead took to Twitter on Friday to state why she had changed her mind and instead returned the bill to legislators for modifications. Noem elaborated on her reasoning in a letter to legislators.
While Noem framed her requested changes as concerning “style” and “form,” the Republican governor sought many amendments, including completely striking two full sections of the proposed bill. The original consisted of only four sections in total.
First, Noem requested the legislature strike Section 2 of the bill, which would have required students to annually verify their age, biological sex based on genetics and reproductive biology, and attest that they had not taken performance-enhancing drugs, including anabolic steroids, in the preceding 12 months.
Noem justified deleting this provision because it created an “unworkable administrative burden on schools, who under its terms must collect verification forms from every student athlete every year.” This rationale seems suspect given that schools usually already collect parental permission forms and medical certification to allow students to participate in athletics every year. Further, nothing in Section 2 requires schools to “monitor these disclosures throughout the year,” although Noem suggested it did.
The most striking changes Noem demanded, however, came in her insistence that the legislature strike collegiate athletes from the bill’s protection and eliminate Section 4’s promise of a remedy to girls and women harmed in a violation of the bill, or who were retaliated against for complaining about violations of the law. Let’s break these changes down a bit, because they render the entire proposal meaningless.
As drafted by the South Dakota legislature, Section 1 of the bill mandated that athletic teams or sports, at the elementary, secondary, and collegiate level, designated as female be “available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex,” as verified by the students’ parents (or, if they are over 18, the student), based on “genetics and reproductive biology.” Then, in Section 4, the South Dakota legislature created a “cause of action,” or a right to sue, entitling students deprived of athletic opportunities or otherwise harmed as the result of a Section 1 violation to sue the school.
In other words, Section 1 demanded schools—including colleges—limit women’s sports to women. If an education institution violated that mandate and allowed a male student to join a female team, Section 4 provides that a female athlete injured by that violation could sue the school and obtain an injunction to prevent a continued violation and damages to remedy the harm.
Section 4 added a second protection for South Dakota student athletes: It also protected students from retaliation if they report violations of the act to a school representative, athletic association, or a state or federal governmental entity with oversight authority. Thus, for instance, if a female basketball player complained to an athletic department that a coach had allowed a male athlete to join her team, and the school responded by banning the complaining student from school-sponsored sports, the female student would be entitled to sue the school for retaliation.
In sending the bill back to the state legislature, Noem made two requests related to these interrelated provisions: She excluded collegiate athletes from the bill’s coverage and then directed the legislature to strike, or delete, Section 4 in its entirety.
In other words, Noem asked the South Dakota legislature to amend Section 1 so that the bill applied only to elementary and high school student athletes, while then denying those students any remedy for violations of the law. All that would remain, then, if the state legislature adopts Noem’s amendments, would be these two sections:
Noem’s requested revisions would thus profess in Section 1 that South Dakota elementary and high school girls’ sports are limited to female athletes, while providing girls harmed by violations of the law no remedy. In fact, by the protections of Section 4, South Dakota schools would be free to retaliate against female athletes who complain about violations of Section 1.
It is bad enough that in sending the Act to Promote Continued Fairness in Women’s Sports back to the legislature, Noem pretended to retain protection for elementary and high school girls in Section 1, only to then leave them without a remedy, even for retaliation. What is worse, though, is Noem’s decision to exclude collegiate athletes from H.B. 1217’s protections and justified that omission with a misleading justification.
Noem's spin calling her actions as only 'style and form' is not fooling anyone.
Another one bites the dust...
She’s doing her best to keep those potential corporate donors on her side for a future POTUS campaign.
Kristi....we hardly knew ya.
Courage is rare—a lot of folks are learning that the hard way.
Hard decisions like this separate the wheat from the chaff. Noem appears to be the chaff. Trump is still the 2024 GOP front-runner, as he has always been. We will see who else in the GOP crowd distinguishes themselves. Noem is done.
I would let this settle out a bit before coming to a conclusion. Just like Governor DeSantis here in FL - the emerging GOP presidential candidates are taking a lot of fake-news/exaggerated news flak at this point. Gladly amped by the media as an extension of the DNC, merely to damage GOP candidates.
In ten years anyone not supporting Trannies in female sports will be called a bigot and even “conservative Republicans” will attack you. They did the same thing with faggot “marriage”
“”” the emerging GOP presidential candidates are taking a lot of fake-news/exaggerated news flak at this point.”””
I do not believe FReepers consider The Federalist as ‘fake news/exaggerated news.
To end guys in women sports, I suggest allowing NBA players to play in the WNBA. That would be amusing
“””I suggest allowing NBA players to play in the WNBA.”””
Great idea. But why stop with just basketball. Let men play against women in professional tennis and golf
I’m still trying to figure out why anyone would need a state law to keep boys out of girls sports. Isn’t this what school boards and sports governing bodies are supposed to do?
https://news.sd.gov/newsitem.aspx?id=27820
There’s a link to the actual letter.
If SD colleges and unis are governed by the State Board of Regents, then they are NOT exempt.
No spin; and Gov. Noem has not sold out women’s sports.
Take the bill, place that in Florida, from the Florida State Legislature to Gov. DeSantis.
He writes the same letter to the legislature, returning the bill to them, for reconsideration.
The Florida problema and the South Dakota problem are the same.
One issue, is national competition at the collegiate level. The existing bill would likely halt that. How will Floridians and their collegiate sports programs react?
Another issue, is that the bill - if signed - ends up before the US Supreme Court.
Then, you will have the USSC legislating the matter, from the bench . . . or, is it better to keep the legislative matter in-state(?) - and that is the view of Gov. Noem, for the moment.
In-state, and under the control of the state, Gov. Noem’s legal advisors (they studied the problem for almost 3 months), believe that the matter overall, is best kept in-state.
Thus, she chose ground where that can best be defended; and thus, her letter to the SD legislature.
Dave Chappelle had a comedy bit where he suggested exactly that. LOL. He said Lebron James should play in the WNBA so he can average like 250 points per game.
Before this, I thought she had something going for her. Not now!
And to think, I had so much hope for her because she had done many things so well. But this one, much like unborn child murder, is a 100% drop-dead NO excuse topic for me.
“ Great idea. But why stop with just basketball. Let men play against women in professional tennis and golf”
All good, but I think NBA playing in the WNBA would be the funniest, games of 500-0 would be common. I did read somewhere that they had the best womens tennis player go up against a high school kid some years ago and she got thoroughly monkey stomped
Biggest cave since Bush I broke his “Read my lips” pledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.