you decide
Posted on 03/26/2021 7:17:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
On Thursday, Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.) signed S.B. 354, the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” making Arkansas the third state to enshrine protections for fairness in women’s sports into law. Idaho became the first state to do so last year, although a federal judge suspended the law last August. Gov. Tate Reeves (R-Miss.) signed a similar law earlier this month. Gov. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) said she would sign a similar law, but she issued a “style and form” veto last Friday, instead.
“This law simply says that female athletes should not have to compete in a sport against a student of the male sex when the sport is designed for women’s competition,” Hutchinson said in a statement announcing he had signed S.B. 354. “As I have stated previously, I agree with the intention of this law. This will help promote and maintain fairness in women’s sporting events.”
S.B. 354 cites various scientific sources on the inherent biological advantages males enjoy over females in most kinds of sport. As Neel Burton explained in Psychology Today, males generally have “denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments,” and “larger hearts, greater lung volume per body mass, a higher red blood cell count, and higher hemoglobin.” Dorian Lambelet Coleman also wrote that males “have higher natural levels of testosterone, which affects traits such as hemoglobin levels, body fat content, the storage and use of carbohydrates, and the development of type 2 muscle fibers, all of which result in men being able to generate higher speed and power during physical activity.”
Even when gender-confused males take so-called “puberty blockers” or cross-sex hormones, those pharmacological interventions do not erase the natural benefits that testosterone provides to male athletes, the law argues.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
That it would EVER be allowed in the first place is what gets me.
That there are even men so craven and depraved that they would do such a thing is what really gets me.
I know many here are angry at Kristie Noem. She said she would sign a cleaner bill which could survive court challenges. I hope she means what she says.
In the meantime I hope other states pass these sorts of laws.
Anyone else get the impression, that the goal posts moved after the activists achieved homosexual marriage? My impression is that we are hearing about all this transsexual rights business in the years after homosexual marriage was imposed.
And if I’m right about that, God only knows what they will shove down our throats once they normalize all this LGBT ASDF NORMALIZATION of gender dysphoria.
It’s bad that Noem is caving. But, it’s worse that she’s trying to pretend that she’s not caving by issuing a ‘style & form’ veto, which apparently (in that state) is reserved for subtle alterations of a bill for spelling, syntax and grammar corrections.
Noem is excising TWO entire sections of a FOUR section bill. She’s nuking half the bill and calling it a ‘style & form’ alteration. Please
And people are still going to pretend like she’s the bravest governor out there. It’s insane.
Bottom line: Kristi blinked.
I have to admit that I would be unable to avoid a smile if I read a news story about one of these male “winners” being beaten to within an inch of their life by the fathers of the girls they bested.
I wouldn’t do it, but I’d definitely consider it justice.
I’m a big Louis L’amoure western fan. I noticed it’s starting to shape my perspective on our modern girly-man world.
you decide
Thought for a brief while that she might become our second woman President. Oh, well ... got no time no more for Noem.
Keyliegh 2024 sounds good to me.
i.e. we need more Sackett’s in the world.
That’s the impression I got, if she had legitimate reasons to veto the bill, come out and say them and let the public judge for themselves, don’t hide behind some lame excuses..
Ironically most only know of Klaus because of Rush Limbaugh.
Noem is a follower, not a leader.
Or perhaps the people who suffered thru the Grammy's a few years ago to hear the duet of Hozier and Annie Lennox sing a nice rendition. https://youtu.be/GAKGzmsIPxE
Yes indeed. Very funny stuff.
I agree with you.
'Repeal to a third position' is one of the lefts best tactics. That's how they got gay marriage.
Here's how it works.
There is a law that says (A). You don't like that but you know the voters would never approve what you want.
So you write a new law (B) which is the OPPPOSITE of what you want. But you word it so badly that the courts reject it, and declare it 'unconstitutional'.
So you say that if (B) is unconstitutional, then the OPPOSITE of (B) must be constitutional- or (C).
(C) is what you originally wanted in the first place.
Instead of 'repealing' meaning going back to what you had (A) - which is the original meaning of 'repeal', you just got a new law (C) that was 'declared constitutional' , without having to go through all the messy legislative process.
Now Andy did you hear about this one?
RE: I know many here are angry at Kristie Noem. She said she would sign a cleaner bill which could survive court challenges. I hope she means what she says.
OK, let’s look at what she DID and DID NOT DO again.
Kristi Noem raised some valid concerns when she returned House Bill 1217 to the state legislature for “style and form” changes. But two of the proposed amendments to the bill that legislators drafted to prevent males from competing as females in athletic events, coupled with the spin since Noem announced she would not sign H.B. 1217 as written, give the governor’s game away: She caved.
H.B. 1217 originally consisted of four sections, with Section 1 providing that elementary, secondary, and collegiate athletic teams must be defined as male, female, or coeducational, then further stating that teams or sports designated as female are “available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex.”
Section 2 then contained reporting requirements that mandated parents (or students for those older than 18) verify each year the student-athlete’s age, biological sex based on genetics and reproductive biology, and whether the student has taken any “performance-enhancing drugs, including anabolic steroids” in the prior year. Under Section 2, a sponsoring organization, if they had “reasonable cause” to believe the information was false, could remove the student from the team and prohibit further participation.
Here’s he point: SIMPLE CHANGES WOULD FIX NOEM’s STATED CONCERNS ! Noem said these annual reporting requirements were burdensome and expressed concern that “performance-enhancing drugs” remained undefined. She thus proposed striking Section 2 in its entirety and leaving Section 1 to handle the determination of biological sex “as reflected on the birth certificate or affidavit provided upon initial enrollment in accordance with §13-27-3.1.”
Had Noem limited her “style and form” changes to this minor modification to Section 1 and omitting Section 2 of the bill, her claim to have problems with the language of the law would have carried more weight.
While South Dakota could have defined “performance-enhancing drugs” in regulation, the main thrust of the law would have remained: protecting female opportunities in athletics.
That goal could still be achieved in South Dakota without annually verifying a student’s age, biological sex, and confirmation of not using performance-enhancing drugs. Basing sports’ participation on biological sex as recorded on a birth certificate “provided upon initial enrollment” could suffice given that South Dakota §13-27-3.1 currently requires parents to provide their child’s birth certificate when the child starts school.
Noem’s modification thus allowed a simple workaround that addressed her concerns while maintaining the biological sex standard for athletic participation. A further tweak in the language, specifying that the birth certificate provided must be a copy of the one originally issued by a state, could ensure the document presented is not one from a state that reissues birth certificates asserting a false sex.
NOW, HERE’s THE PROBLEM:
The problem is that Noem did two more things that completely gutted the proposed statute. First, she omitted college students from the protections of the law. Second, she directed the legislature to strike in its entirety Section 4 of the bill.
Had Noem truly sought to “fix” the law, as opposed to rendering it meaningless, she would have presented “style and form” recommendations to Section 4 that narrowed the scope of the private right of action. By deleting Section 2’s reporting requirement on performance-enhancing drugs, the governor already addressed the concern that that provision would trigger a flurry of lawsuits.
Also, if Noem remained concerned over creating an incentive to litigate, a “style and form” revision that limited the private right of action to a claim for injunctive relief would eliminate the money motive. This amendment would then allow girls and women facing male competitors, in violation of the law, to sue for an injunction or a court order, requiring the school district or athletic program to comply with Section 1’s mandate that female sports or teams be limited to female athletes.
Without Section 4, H.B. 1217 is toothless. And there really is no legitimate reason for completing eliminating the right for a female student-athlete to sue under the law when Noem could have instead proposed a narrower private right of action, whether for injunctive relief only or including a limited monetary award, such as for a lost scholarship opportunity.
Eliminating collegiate women from the bill, however, waved the flag of surrender. While bad enough in principle, Noem’s spin, insincerity, and now snark at those criticizing her decision have made things worse.
It’s not good for SD that Noem caved to pressure, nor is it good that her staff is whining about conservatives. It is good, however, that we found out who she is now, instead of later.
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.