Rookie Representative (and not a doctor or a scientist) Bobbi Andera’s (R-10/Sioux Falls) quack medicine bill died in the House Thursday on a heap of absurdity. I document here the silliest things proponents said, as well as the reasonable concerns Republican opponents raised about legal liability. I note that all five House Democrats simply voted nay on HB 1068 and avoided participating in this 37 minutes of mostly wasted Legislative time.
Rep. Andera brought House Bill 1068 in an attempt to undermine science, medicine, and public health by encouraging people to fight covid with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which don’t work on covid. In defending this medically, scientifically, and morally indefensible bill, Andera said on the House floor that the “some agencies and medical groups” “unfortunately” opposed prescribing “alternative early treatments”for covid—”and in fact”, she said ominously, “some still do”, implying that some early opponents to her quack medicine have changed their minds, when in fact support for those ineffective treatments has not grown.
Rep. Andera said that the medical establishment’s resistance to alternative treatments with no proven effectiveness but proven dangers made people ask, “Why are we forced to accept a certain type of treatment?”… which is absurd, since no one was forced to accept any type of treatment; reputable doctors were just saying, “No, we’re not going to give you ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.”
Rep. Andera plowed ahead with her absurdity, claiming that some people’s desire for alternative treatments that real doctors and scientists refused to endorse “led to a distrust of medical professionals and government agencies.” No, Bobbi, that distrust, the distrust you continue to fan, caused people to ignore the recommendations of real doctors and scientists and make themselves sick with worm pills.
Rep. Andera claimed HB 1068 would restore the trust between patients, providers, and pharmacists. Actually, HB 1068 would only write into law the distrust in science that Andera and her ilk are promoting.
HB 1068 would have exempted doctors and pharmacists from legal liability for harms caused by the ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine that they might inexplicably hand out to patients. Rep. Andera told her House colleagues that such immunity is the same as the protection South Dakota law grants to first responders who administer naloxone or other opioid antagonists given to save people who’ve overdosed. No, Bobbi, it’s not the same. Naloxone works on opioid overdoses, with rare side effects. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine don’t provide any benefit to covid patients to outweigh their numerous and dangerous side effects. Immunity for first responders acting in an emergency to administer a proven life-saving drug according to its approved usage is reasonable; immunity for doctors and pharmacists going against science to hand out medicine for off-label, ineffective, and dangerous use is not reasonable.
Rep. John Shubeck (R-16/Centerville) jumped on that issue of off-label use and spun it to his fellow Republicans’ ears by pointing out that a “detransitioners” are suing health care providers for prescribing puberty-blocking drugs for off-label use. Shubeck’s thrust: HB 1068 would set a precedent for shielding doctors who give out medicine off-label, which would allow future ascendant liberals to protect doctors turning little boys into little girls. So Republican anti-trans ugly conflicts here with Republican anti-science ugly.
Shubeck made a more tolerable analogy to off-label pesticide and herbicide use, but then veered remarkably: “I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with ivermectin—ivermectin, hydroxychlorquine are very proven, they’ve been used across the world on millions and billions of people. I think they’re proven to be safe, that’s not the argument here.” John, please, don’t hyperextend your parliamentary civility to excuse your colleague’s bad medicine: ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are not proven safe or effective for the use on which your colleague bases her entire argument. Don’t grant ground that should not be granted!
Rep. John Hughes (R-13/Sioux Falls) rose with more rigorous opposition to HB 1068, saying that the Legislature should not set itself up as a medical authority or “super-regulator” against the prevailing judgment of mainstream medicine. He also poked at HB 1068’s immunity for providing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine “in good faith”. Citing his law professor, Hughes said good faith “is a pure heart and an empty head…. Good faith isn’t the standard for liability in the history of the common law. Negligence is providing care… that is below the standard that the society calls for.” He suggested it makes more sense to allow people to sign liability waivers to go bungee-jumping than it does to free doctors and pharmacists to hand out ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Rep. Al Novstrup (R-3/Aberdeen) declared he doesn’t have enough information to have an opinion on the subject of this debate. He nonetheless took floor time to recite things that he admitted artificial intelligence told him. Since District 3 didn’t vote for a robot to represent them, Al’s robot text may be ignored.
Rep. Matt Roby (R-5/Watertown) professed zero opinion on the efficacy of the two drugs (come on, Matt, read the actual research and get an opinion) but said he opposed HB 1068 because it denies the public the opportunity for legal redress if something goes wrong.
Rep. Leslie Heinemann (R-25/Flandreau) said, “The problem we have in front of us is a result of the experts couldn’t agree during the pandemic.” But Les, the experts agreed pretty quickly and firmly agree now that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine don’t work on covid. The problem you have in front of you is a result of a few cranks refusing to accept science.
Heinemann said he wants to restore trust in medicine, but his comments boiled down to dismissing experts and telling people to shop around for doctors who tell them what they want to hear instead of trusting doctors’ expertise.
Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer (R-3/Aberdeen) proved that District 3 lacks effective, intelligent representation in the House. Schaefbauer admitted she’s been taking ivermectin throughout her career in the Legislature and has been feeling sick the last few days because she forgot to take her latest dose. She admitted to ordering ivermectin via an out-of-state online pharmacy and wondered why she as a South Dakotan shouldn’t be free to order her drug of choice here in South Dakota. “I would say, you know, revenue for our state, revenue for our businesses in our state,” said Schaefbauer.
Please remember Rep. Schaefbauer’s comments when the House takes up House Bill 1274, the ban on ordering mifepristone from out-of-state online pharamacies. Freedom and revenue, right?
Rep. Will Mortenson (R-24/Fort Pierre) swam around in the namby-pamb maybe it works maybe it doesn’t dodge, saying he knows lots of people who take ivermectin, including an uncle who takes it for almost everything. Will, like John, can you not just read the science and speak the truth to the knuckleheads in your caucus?
Mortenson nonetheless offered the most passionate opposition to HB 1068. He focused his fire on the last two sentences—the good-faith immunity for pharmacists and health care providers—which he said “have got my goat.” He said that unlike the status quo, where the good Representative from Brown County orders her horse pills online and clicks “I am willing to waive liability because I am taking on the risk.” Mortenson said HB 1068 is “the people in this room waiving liability for every single person in this state. We are giving away the rights of our citizens!” (Yes, an exclamation point is appropriate, as Mortenson sounded pretty hot about having to debate what he called a “covid hangover bill”.)
To make sure Republicans were still listening, Mortenson mirrored Shubeck in framing the bill in terms of the culture war. He said HB 1068 would deny any legal recourse to a pregnant woman who takes one of the allowed drugs and loses her baby. Hear that, Republicans? HB 1068 is killing babies!
Rep. Phil Jensen (R-33/Rapid City) rose to ask Mortenson if drug companies get legal immunity. Mortenson didn’t take Jensen’s bait; he rose to repeat his explanation of HB 1068’s blanket immunity and said this bill is all we’re talking about today.
Unbowed by Mortenson’s vigorous and appropriate dodge, Jensen said consistency would require repealing immunity for the vaccine manufacturers. No, Phil, consistency requires no such thing, because covid vaccines work and ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine don’t.
Jensen opined, “A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument,” a sure sign that Jensen has no argument. Jensen started to say something about leadership elections in 2020 when Mortenson leapt up with a point of order: “We are not speaking to the four corners of this bill whatsoever.” Speaker Jon Hansen (R-25/Dell Rapids) upheld the point of order and told Rep. Jensen not to go wherever he was going on leadership elections.
Jensen said he came down with covid on the way back from the 2020 Session. He said his doctor was “brave enough” to give him vitamin D, zinc, and hydroxychloroquine. Jensen said that within an hour, his muscle aches disappeared. He said ivermectin saved another man’s life. He dove into conspiracy theory, claiming ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed so the “so-called” covid vaccine could get an emergency authorization. “These drugs are effective,” Rep. Jensen concluded, “and I would encourage you to err on the side of freedom,” by which Jensen evidently means the freedom to ignore science and believe and promote whatever nonsense you want.
Sensing Rep. Mortenson may have hit a culture-war nerve, rookie Rep. Josephine Garcia (R-5/Watertown) began by saying that ivermectin “has not caused any human miscarriages.” I find a January 2020 review and meta-analysis that finds no documented miscarriages caused by ivermectin, but the researchers say, ‘There is insufficient evidence to conclude on the safety profile of ivermectin during pregnancy. Treatment campaigns should focus additional efforts on preventing inadvertent treatment of pregnant women.” A 2021 review recommends further research “to address safety concerns regarding the use of ivermectin in pregnant women” but indicates taking ivermectin to treat tropical diseases may mitigate the miscarriages that those diseases unchecked might cause. That’s great if you’re treating tropical diseases, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are zero benefits to taking ivermectin for covid that would outweigh potential and as-yet unknown risks to pregnant woman and their fetuses. And Rep. Garcia herself admitted she wouldn’t recommend taking ivermectin during pregnancy.
(Rep. Garcia didn’t go here, but I will, since I dig science: A 2025 study from India indicates hydroxychloroquine may actually improve conception and pregnancy outcomes!)
Rep. Garcia said we (who’s we, Josephine?) use erectile-dysfunction drugs off-label for benign prostatic hypertrophy, even though we don’t have studies to back that use, so… well, so there, I guess. Rep. Garcia it’s our job to give the people what they want, which point again I hope will be raise when the House takes up the mail-order mifepristone ban.
Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt (R-14/Sioux Falls) rose to remind her colleagues of the bad things ivermectin and hydroxyxhloroquine can cause—seizures, coma, and death—and emphasized that we ought to keep liability protections around in case providers give the wrong dosage of these poisons.
Rep. Andera closed by saying she’s speaking on behalf of medical freedom (code for quackery) and the providers who are suffering post-traumatic stress from being told not to prescribe quack medicine. “help me liberate our providers to do what they have been trained to do,” Andera said, although I’d be hard-pressed to identify any medical or pharmacy school that trains its students to give out medicine that does not work.
The final vote was 28–40. 28 Republicans failed to see the absurdity of the proponents’ arguments and supported this harmful repudiation of medical science. Too bad there’s no pill to cure that form of stupidity.
If you can’t pass it, take the horse medicine. Simple.
At least the horses in So. Dak. are happy.
The brilliance of the legislature is extraordinary isn’t it?
Does representative JOSEPHINE Garcia really take erectile drugs? What evidence based facts require that?
OT Married congresswomen would be better off worrying whether their married name matches their birth certificate or magats will deny them the right to vote.