We may note with relief that Senator Jim Stalzer yesterday withdrew Senate Bill 109, the ill-advised “conscience” bill that would have allowed health care professionals to refuse to provide care for whatever moral or religious reasons they might claim. Yet he warned us in Senate Health and Human Services that he’s going to have more conversations and craft a conscience bill for next year (assuming, of course, that he wins reëlection… and hey, District 11 Democrats, you’re working on this, right?). Acting Chair Helene Duhamel called Stalzer a thoughtful and gracious “statesman” and took the vote to withdraw the bill.
Duhamel’s neighbor John Tsitrian says Stalzer’s thoughtful and gracious statesmanship will lose South Dakota workers:
If South Dakota’s GOP-dominated leadership in Pierre really wants to adhere to the “we’re open for business” maxim pushed by Gov. Noem last month, shouldn’t their legislative efforts be directed at giving our state a reputation for acceptance of all law-abiding people who want to live here? You’d think so, but some of our anti-reproductive-rights Republican legislators disagree, because they’re pushing Senate Bill 109, which will apply to healthcare professionals, institutions and insurance companies and, in the words of the bill “provide protections for health care decisions governed by conscience.”
…Contradicting Noem’s business-oriented goals, supporters want to make sure that the state that’s supposed to be “open for business” is anything but. They want our healthcare providers to be able to deny services to people that seek reproductive care and counseling. Could there be a more perfect way to undermine Noem’s goal of making South Dakota a state where people feel welcomed?
…This works directly against our “open for business” pitch. If you want some back-up for that view, consider this list of companies that say restricting abortion laws is bad for business. There are a lot of digitally-oriented household names here–and our “open for business” promoters in South Dakota should note that Netflix, Disney and WarnerMedia have said they may stop producing movies in Georgia if that state’s “heartbeat law” goes into effect [John Tsitrian, “Does a State That’s ‘Open for Business Really Want a Law That Lets Health-Care Providers Pick and Choose Who They Want to Treat?” South Dakota Standard, 2020.02.24].
Stalzer’s withdrawn SB 109, like the rest of the SDGOP’s culture-war bill collection, makes clear the overriding message of our one-party regime: South Dakota doesn’t want your kind here. And that message will kill our economic development.
Lucky for him. my sincerely held religious/moral/ornery beliefs say I cannot in good conscience render any medical aid to stoopid effing phony khristian wingnuts. To hell with the Hippocraic oath.
It appears to me that Helene Duhamel is a doofus.
There’s a good reason successful businesses push hard for open and inclusive laws and regulations in every state where they operate. Off hand, Hobby Lobby is the only one I can think of that does not.
Of course, there’s the World’s Largest Traffickers in Children and Women, dba, the Roman Catholic Church. If SD wants to emulate an organization that leads the world in molesting children, raping and forcing abortions on nuns and protecting the perpetrators, I guess they can have at it.
The successful businesses of the states, USA and world work really hard to avoid such reputations.
Well, you know, those religious / moral objections are only to be applied towards pregnant women. They just don’t want to have to say it out loud.
Here’s one of the reasons Minnesota and similar states do so much better than SD:
“More than half of Minnesota voters say they support the resettlement of refugees in their communities and believe that immigrants mostly boost the economy, a Star Tribune/MPR News Minnesota Poll found.
“More than 8 in 10 registered Democrats support refugee resettlement, as well as 60% of those who identify as independents or have other party affiliations. Opposition was strongest among Republicans, with 56% saying they oppose resettling new refugees in their communities.”
is.gd/KNUxN8
Note that the strongest opposition to refugees is only 56%. Even 44% of the Minnesota GOP favors bringing in refugees! Wow.
Being a fear dominated state like SD kills everything. It doesn’t matter if that is fear of LBTG people, women, POC, refugees, different or no religions. That fear translates into unchanging rigidity and zero risk taking.
The white people who came to SD initially were brave risk takers. They were probably shaking in their boots more often than not, but they put one foot in front of the other and went for it. It’s such a pity that 21st century white residents of the state have forsworn that kind of courageous action.
BTW, while the SDGOP is playing doctor, how are their preparations for the coronavirus in SD coming?
“Minnesota hospitals and public health agencies are ramping up preparations for the novel coronavirus that has almost reached global pandemic levels since emerging in China this winter and spreading to at least 37 countries.”
Debbo, the point about the self-destructiveness of fear is profound. That’s what FDR was talking about.
But at peril of justifying racism and manifest destiny (I’m not, but I want to test a hypothesis), our predecessors were awfully afraid of the Indians when they landed on this continent. The homesteaders were afraid of Indians when they came out for their socialist free land and built the sod huts. That fear led us to commit genocide. Yet amidst that fear, we still built the most powerful and arguably most creative nation in the world. Fear did not stop us from building our empire (perhaps we can say fear motivated us to build our empire?); is the difference now that our fear is coupled with a desire to preserve a crumbling status quo? Does a push toward growth outweigh fear? Is fear only fully self-destructive when coupled with stagnation?
Yes Cory, they were afraid, but they took the risk of doing the new thing anyway. That’s my point and that’s exactly what courage is.
Fear overcome leads to growth and strength. I would say that it is precisely such a desire that led the farmer, safely ensconced on his father’s Ohio farm, to take the risk of going West to the wild and untamed Dakotas. He wanted to be more.
Today’s South Dakotans have apparently surrendered all tough, pioneering, risk-taking strengths that their predecessors had. It’s not the state I grew up in.