I think the "style and form veto" she used is a cop out. I defended her a couple of weeks ago thinking she just had issues with the wording or something, and wanted to make it stronger, but I don't think that's the case.
This is the best article I've read that explains it.
She wanted it reworded in a way that essentially renders it meaningless. For example,
Weakens Section 1 dramatically by changing the operative language of the bill. Previously the bill stated: “A team or sport designated as being female is available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex…” She wants that edited to: "“A team or sport designated as being female is available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex, as reflected on the birth certificate or affidavit provided upon initial enrollment…”
In other words, under Noem’s proposed changes, a biological male would easily be able to participate in women’s sports in South Dakota (even in K-12) as long as he files the proper paperwork.
Unbelievable pede look I'm not saying she's the wicked witch of the west but yeh take a dam look at her voting record I mean it's there to see thanks pede
I don't think there's anything wrong with using the birth certificate, since South Dakota is still recording biological sex on birth certificates. However, the "affidavit" part seems more concerning.
Good luck. Leftists are going birth certs and they play to win. They know how important word meanings are (laws, birth certs etc). They are running rings around everyone else. Noem is right to be concerned about the wording of bills etc.
But even “biological sex” isn’t remotely bulletproof. My professor for my psych nursing class, with a DNP, stated clearly multiple times that if they have a “sex change” then their biological sex has now changed. So if a dude who had testosterone running through his veins for half a decade gets his dick chopped off, there is now plenty of literature stating that his biological sex is now “female.” And some states would allow, and fund, this type of operation in children. An 18 year old dude gets his sex change and at 18 1/2 can go play women’s soccer in college under that original wording.
Your professor is wrong. A biological man remains a biological man until he dies, and there aren't any other kinds. We don't need to write our laws to work around professors' fantasyland pronouncements.
What I heard out of her own mouth was she was basically afraid of the Bill pissing off the NCAA and then pulling their support of SD university sports. So in my opinion, right wrong or indifferent, the reason why the bill was kill is because of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Wasn't her objection to this bill more about how it was written and not the intent?
I understand that might be bullshit. I'm not 100% spun up on this one.
The language of bills can spell disaster down the line.
I think the "style and form veto" she used is a cop out. I defended her a couple of weeks ago thinking she just had issues with the wording or something, and wanted to make it stronger, but I don't think that's the case.
This is the best article I've read that explains it.
https://jonschweppe.substack.com/p/the-kristi-noem-veto-explained
She wanted it reworded in a way that essentially renders it meaningless. For example,
Weakens Section 1 dramatically by changing the operative language of the bill. Previously the bill stated: “A team or sport designated as being female is available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex…” She wants that edited to: "“A team or sport designated as being female is available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex, as reflected on the birth certificate or affidavit provided upon initial enrollment…”
In other words, under Noem’s proposed changes, a biological male would easily be able to participate in women’s sports in South Dakota (even in K-12) as long as he files the proper paperwork.
Best explanation yet. Thanks. Compromising with the lunatics does not work.
Ever well said pede
FUCKING THIS WELL SAID we still got hopium addiction to the GOP here you think they would have learned by now FFS 👍👍
They're too lazy to look up her voting record as a us congressman.
www.govtrack.us for all her votes
Unbelievable pede look I'm not saying she's the wicked witch of the west but yeh take a dam look at her voting record I mean it's there to see thanks pede
This is my impression of Noem's approach and the bill's situation as well.
In Tasmania, Australia...they are apparently already not recording biological sex on birth certs.
I don't think there's anything wrong with using the birth certificate, since South Dakota is still recording biological sex on birth certificates. However, the "affidavit" part seems more concerning.
Good luck. Leftists are going birth certs and they play to win. They know how important word meanings are (laws, birth certs etc). They are running rings around everyone else. Noem is right to be concerned about the wording of bills etc.
But even “biological sex” isn’t remotely bulletproof. My professor for my psych nursing class, with a DNP, stated clearly multiple times that if they have a “sex change” then their biological sex has now changed. So if a dude who had testosterone running through his veins for half a decade gets his dick chopped off, there is now plenty of literature stating that his biological sex is now “female.” And some states would allow, and fund, this type of operation in children. An 18 year old dude gets his sex change and at 18 1/2 can go play women’s soccer in college under that original wording.
Your professor is wrong. A biological man remains a biological man until he dies, and there aren't any other kinds. We don't need to write our laws to work around professors' fantasyland pronouncements.
What I heard out of her own mouth was she was basically afraid of the Bill pissing off the NCAA and then pulling their support of SD university sports. So in my opinion, right wrong or indifferent, the reason why the bill was kill is because of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
super
Yeah, it doesn't matter what she says in her official statements. She specifically said it was because of the NCAA when she was live-interviewed.
It was a ban all the way to college. She wanted an exception in colleges. Some say that it was a donation issue
It was the NCAA getting ready to wag-their-female-dick-around problem.
ty
There's another comment elsewhere though that makes a fantastic point.
Pass it anyway.
So it will be struck down.
So?
In the mean time it's the law, and the left has to waste money and resources fighting it.
Use that time to solidify a better bill that is ironclad and can be passed a few years later if necessary, but get your law on the books NOW.
If you skip it waiting for a perfect bill, you have allowed the left to win without even fighting.