Governor Dennis Daugaard says all that needs to be said about planned Legislative efforts to fuss about where transgender students go potty—don’t do it:
It is a solution in search of a problem…. I think to the extent that there are issues that concern transgender students in our schools that, as I mentioned in my veto message, those are being addressed at the local level and there is no need for a state one-size-fits all solution to be imposed upon local governments when those governments can manage the situation already [Governor Dennis Daugaard, in Dana Ferguson, “Daugaard Says South Dakota Doesn’t Need Transgender Bathroom Bill,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2017.01.09].
…not if you don’t want South Dakota to lose tens of millions of dollars:
I know that the Chamber of Commerce in Sioux Falls is very concerned about all the NCAA tournaments and the other kinds of sports tournaments we are hosting at the Sanford Pentagon and at the Premier Center. And those are tens of millions of dollars of tournaments that are at risk if the state jumps into this arena unnecessarily [Daugaard, in Ferguson, 2017.01.09].
On this issue, the Governor is talking sense. Legislators, stick with the budget and corruption.
Thank you Governor Daugaard.
I second that, Thanks Governor!
I think what the Governor wanted to say was that the Family Heritage Alliance are “scam artists” who are trying to “hoodwink” the legislature.
So who do Republican legislators want to stick it to more: transgender kids? or Sioux Falls?
Seems to me that a lot of Republican legislators will see the transgender potty bill as a win/win.
As a Republican I can see this is a “no win” situation. I think we allow the schools to handle this issue on their own. We don’t need state wide legislation on this issue. No matter how you put this legislation before the people, you will end up looking bad and get crucified in the media.
Boswell, sounds like you’re taking a position like the Governor’s: schools are able to handle this situation best, so keep Pierre out of it.
But keep in mind: no matter how you put this legislation before the people, you end up looking bad because it is bad legislation.
Ror, I will be interested to hear how many legislators (and voters) will acknowledge the economic impacts of boycotts and other lost business and say, “Worth it.”
With the state of NC as an example, I think that legislators would be foolish to attempt a bill like this. While it may be accepted by some in the state, nationally we would be crucified. Protecting Parents rights not to expose their children to sexuality issues until they (the parents) are ready is not a bad thing.
“rights not to expose children to sexuality issues”—hmmm… dare I ask what all that entails?