[ad_1]
Senator Reynold Nesiba, a Democrat and an economics professor, said his primary concern with the bill was the way it was being framed.
“Here we are in the Capitol in Pierre, S.D., at a great distance, trying to influence a decision that is so personal and really needs to be made by the child, the parent and the physician,” he said. “And from the evidence I’ve seen, there is no evidence that physicians are doing harm.”
South Dakota tests lots of conservative legislation.
South Dakota, where Republicans have full control of state government, has become a proving ground for conservative legislation on issues such as abortion, gun rights and, in recent years, transgender rights. One reason the state is appealing for such experimentation: Every bill introduced in South Dakota is guaranteed a public hearing.
If an issue survives in South Dakota, that can make it easier for conservative groups to pitch a policy to lawmakers in other states. This year, bills restricting medical care for transgender children have also been introduced in several states, including Colorado, Florida, Missouri and South Carolina, though none of those bills have advanced out of committee.
“Once you pass one of these bills somewhere, it gets a heck of a lot easier to pass them somewhere else,” said Libby Skarin, the policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, which opposes the bill banning treatment for transgender teenagers and has threatened to sue if it becomes law.
Though South Dakota is a heavily conservative state, there is nuance within its Republican Party. Three House Republicans voted against sending the bill to the full House, after a hearing in which out-of-state proponents of the bill testified on video. Even some supporters acknowledge that transgender restrictions are not a top priority for constituents.
“I would never go so far as to say it’s a No. 1 issue,” said Mr. Qualm, the House majority leader. “It’s on their radar.”
[ad_2]
Source link
