As our elected officials once again gather in the state capitol for the 40-day hamster wheel known as the legislative session, they will be faced with countless decisions and votes that determine the course of the state, all done in the best interests of all of us who voted to send them there.
Or, as I get it that is the general idea, right?
I wish that was the vibe I got, but really, you know…I don’t.
Nope, nothing about marijuana here. I voted for both medicinal and recreational — for both progressive and conservative reasons.
Progressive because I know of people who would benefit from the relief offered with medicinal marijuana; conservative because if marijuana is legalized it can be regulated and, more importantly, taxed.
When it comes to marijuana, our duly elected officials will either get all the dominoes lined up to their satisfaction, or, as history has shown, they will keep sending it back to us to really make sure that this is what we want.
That is pretty much my focus this turn.
Governor Kristi Noem said in her State of the State address that one of the things on which she will focus is making illegal any abortion that takes place after six weeks.
If it seems that legislation on abortion comes around pretty regularly, well, it’s because it pretty much does. Or has for several years.
A bit of history, which you may or may not recall.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 22, 1973, 49 years ago today actually, that abortions were legal. A short time after that, I’m sure, the effort to criminalize it began. I don’t know. I was 10 then.
The powers that be in Pierre likely began the struggle to short circuit the procedure as well. (See Hunt, Roger)
After some failures in the House and/or Senate, the legislature passed a law that would outlaw abortions, HB1215 in 2006. Signatures were gathered after its passage, however, and the passed law was referred to the voters (Referred Law 6 if you want to look it up on the Secretary of State’s website) which was voted down that fall by the citizens of South Dakota 185,945 (55.57%) to 148,648 (44.43%).
Remember those percentages, they will come back in just a little bit.
A side note, medical marijuana was voted down on that same ballot.
Two years later, in 2008, the legislature was taken out of the equation, as Initiated Measure 11 was on the ballot, which would have made abortion illegal except in the case of health of the mother, rape or incest. That issue was also voted down, 206,535 (55.21%) to 167,560 (44.79 %).
See I told you. It was two years later and nearly 40,000 more people cast ballots, but the percentages were virtually identical.
“But that was more than 12 years ago, Curt,” you may say. “People’s opinions change.”
Do they? Well, not really.
Gallup does a poll each year, asking questions on abortion, with three answers: Legal under any circumstances; Legal under only certain circumstances; Illegal in all circumstances. Oh, there’s also a ‘No Opinion’ option too.
They began the poll in 1975 and since then, the poll numbers have fluctuated…..really not much at all.
Legal under any circumstances was 33% in 1975 and 32% last year, with a low of 21% in 2009. Legal under certain circumstances, low of 48% (in 1992 and last year) with a high of 61% in 1997. Illegal in any circumstances ran from 12 to 22 percent.
My point is that the opinions have not really skewed wildly toward outlawing abortions…except in state legislatures, where the procedure has been slowly eroded since voters opted against making it illegal, at least here, in 2008. The people doing the electing still poll pretty much the same, however.
Over the years, abortion rates have fallen, but that drop has been attributed not to stricter laws or harsher enforcement but instead is credited to….education.
It’s impossible to legislate banning sex that may result in pregnancy - jeez parents have been sounding that bell for decades.
But there is the possibility of continuing to educate more youth on the possible end game scenarios.
The need for limiting participation of transgender athletes has not changed - it’s still a government solution searching for a problem - but, according to a press release from the Gov’s office, this time around, the legislation is written so that if it is challenged in court, it is defendable.
Not that we need it more mind you - that we can now defend it.
The legislation is directed toward trans athletes competing in female sports. But again, I will point out that at the 2018 Cheer and Dance state meet, a AA school had a young man on its roster, and judging from the photos, he was pretty darn good. According to the S.D. High School Activities Association, the young man’s parents had to threaten to sue to allow him to compete. The SDHSAA has since drafted its own set of regulations to deal with the non-existent problem, in hopes of heading off legislation from state government.
Nope, sorry.
That being said, if one looks at the sideline of any major college basketball or football game, there are cheerleaders - male and female - who are likely under some sort of scholarship. Could it be that neglecting to allow a high school boy from being on the cheer and/or dance team is limiting his scholarship opportunities? Well….yeah, it probably is.
And does it cut both ways?
Jenna VanHolland, a junior from Garretson High School, who has played soccer since she was young, stepped in to the place kicker role for the Blue Dragons this past fall. VanHolland played well enough to earn All-State recognition in Class 9A as a Special Teams player, obviously the first girl and probably the last - to ever do so.
Would the new law take that opportunity away from Miss VanHolland, who, as a successful junior kicker this year, would presumably have the inside track to a return engagement next fall?
Legislators only have 40 days. Why continue to toil on these issues?
Yeah, I got nothing for you here.
