Press "Enter" to skip to content

HB 1008: Paranoid Potty Bill Could Cost South Dakota $205 Million a Year in Federal Education Aid

Both chambers of the South Dakota Legislature convene at 2 p.m. Central today. The House takes up HB 1182, the sales tax for teacher pay bill; the Senate takes up HB 1008, Rep. Fred Deutsch’s paranoid potty bill. The House will likely balk again on HB 1182 and put off action for another 48 hours; the Senate may well take the final vote that stands between this legislative bullying of transgender kids and the Governor’s signature.

I’ve been grinding the gears on my spreadsheets figuring the fiscal impact of HB 1182; I yield the floor to the ACLU to lay out the fiscal impact of violating federal law and forcing schools to discriminate against transgender students:

ACLU infographic: cost of HB 1008 for South Dakota, 2016.02.16

We can’t get the House to cowboy up to an $80 million increase in K-12 spending, but the Senate may vote to give up a million bucks per lawsuit and $205 million a year in lost federal education aid? Someone, please, explain to me why legislators are less worried about teachers leaving the state than about kids taking a leak in the toilet of their choice.


  1. mikeyc, that's me! 2016-02-16 14:02

    Two words-
    uneducated hicks.

  2. Mark Winegar 2016-02-16 15:22

    The costs of bigotry are too high and then there’s lost federal revenue to add to the ledger.

  3. bearcreekbat 2016-02-16 17:25

    Legislators voting for this bill certainly do not hold the state’s interest above their personal fears and prejudices. How embarrassing for all SD residents.

  4. Loren 2016-02-16 17:34

    If this passes, SD will be the first in the nation! Who said we don’t have leaders, tough individuals that don’t mind taking a hit of a few hundred million bucks for a good cause?

  5. mike from iowa 2016-02-16 18:40

    When Obie’s next Scotus appointment gets approved,South Dakota wingnuts will be declared unconstitutional and then defined out of existence.

  6. Paul Seamans 2016-02-16 19:47

    I would suggest that the entire student body of a school declare that they are transgender. Watch the potty police scramble then.

  7. mike from iowa 2016-02-16 20:04

    I like the way you think,Mr Seamans. Kids can sort this stuff out way better than elected morans can and they generally get it right.

  8. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-02-16 20:38

    Paul, an interesting idea, but we don’t want to trivialize our transgender neighbors’ concerns. A major point they make is that being transgender isn’t just a ploy, some casual trick so they can go peeping in the showers.

    But it would be interesting to see if our legislators would so bravely bully a larger minority.

  9. grudznick 2016-02-16 20:40

    If this 100 million dollar cost is real, then good teachers can probably kiss all the raises goodbye. I’m just sayin…

  10. W R Old Guy 2016-02-17 14:23

    What happens when a parent goes to a school activity with a student and has one or more younger siblings in tow? It is not unusual for a parent to take a youngster into a restroom that matches the parent’s gender. We have many single parents and families where there may be only one parent able to attend the function. Is it a violation if a mom takes six year old son into the ladies room?

  11. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-02-17 18:46

    WR Old Guy, yes, it appears to be a violation for anyone other than a student to use a student bathroom. Recall my January 31 post, in which I noted that HB 1008 says, “Every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school that is designated for student use and is accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex.” That means no adults, at any time. That means Mom can’t pee in the school girls’ restroom, and she sure can’t take her six-year-old boy into the school girls’ room.

  12. grudznick 2016-02-17 19:15

    Or the ban only applies to students. Teachers of opposite biological sexes can use whatever bathroom they want.

    I bet you there are other laws or rules that forbid making bathrooms restricted to certain classes of adult or child, black or white, fat or skinny. What if they had “ponytailed-only bathrooms” and “no-ponytail bathrooms” at Toshiba and Mr. Sibby had to go real bad and wasn’t by the right one?

    This smacks of unconstitutionality or moronic-ism and is probably grounds for a veto.

  13. grudznick 2016-02-17 19:17

    If the bill said “may not be used by teachers or parents” then you’d really have a reason to lock them up. Otherwise a wise fellow like that Mr. Haugaard could probably drive a truck through that law in his courts.

  14. larry kurtz 2016-02-17 20:15

    Why are people lending credibility to the Drunkards Without Compassion blog by leaving comments there?

  15. larry kurtz 2016-02-17 20:17

    “Crossgrain” is just Powers using his own comment section to create the illusion of dialogue, right?

  16. grudznick 2016-02-17 20:23

    Lar, you know Mr. PP doesn’t post using other names. Let us hope you can send enough monies to Mr. H to offset all the monies PP is drubbing up.

  17. larry kurtz 2016-02-17 20:33

    Powers is a sluggard of comic book proportions sliming his readers with the jizz of credulity who salts his comment section with rabbit pellets doubling as food for nought.

  18. grudznick 2016-02-17 20:39

    Salt, jizz, and rabbit pellets, all in the same blogging there Lar. I’m impressed.

  19. larry kurtz 2016-02-17 20:40

    There was a time when Cory forbade stupidness at his blog and transparency was paramount; I long for those days.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.