Transgender treatment bill passes S.D. House, advances to Senate committee

PIERRE — The South Dakota House has given a thumbs up to criminalizing medical treatment for transgender children.

The House passed Rep. Fred Deutsch’s House Bill 1057 on a 46-23 vote, with one excused, after more than a dozen legislators debated it for 90 minutes on the House floor on Wednesday afternoon.

The bill prohibits hormone treatment, puberty blockers and gender confirmation surgery for children younger than 16 years old. Those treatments would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of one year in jail and a maximum fine of $2,000.

Deutsch, R-Florence, called HB 1057 a “bill of compassion.” Transgender children are “ordinary boys and girls” who are depressed and struggle with their bodies. It’s OK for transgender adults to make decisions about their care, but "subjecting children to these interventions is deeply hurtful,” he said, adding, "This bill is about protecting children."

What did lawmakers have to say?

Rep. Steven Haugaard, R-Sioux Falls, supported Deutsch's stance, saying that HB 1057 involves children who have “not received wise mental counsel.” Best medical practices are based on “bad research” that’s cyclical. To illustrate his point, he said the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s standard of care is focused on supporting its position without the “objective of science outside the realm of their peer review."

The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota has threatened a legal challenge if the HB1057 is signed into law. House Leader Lee Qualm, R-Platte, read a letter from Liberty Counsel offering to represent the state pro bono if it's sued over the bill.

But Rep. Ryan Cwach, D-Yankton, disagreed, saying South Dakota taxpayers will be on the hook yet again for attorney's fees when the state loses another court challenge of its legislation. If HB 1057 results in a lawsuit, the state will have to prove there was a "crisis in South Dakota" that needed to be dealt with immediately, he said.

Some lawmakers said legislation falls into the same category as other state laws protecting children, including laws prohibiting child abuse, requiring seat belts and prohibiting smoking.

"This is a child protection bill," said Rep. Nancy York, R-Watertown.

But Rep. Jess Olson of Rapid City urged her fellow Republicans to oppose the bill because they have opposed "nanny state legislation" in the past and they need to be careful when interfering with parental rights.

Supporters of the bill are from outside South Dakota, she said, adding that this isn't first time South Dakota is being used as a "test ground" for controversial legislation by out-of-state voices.

"This is information and an agenda by people who regret their decisions in California and Seattle. It was the people from South Dakota who testified, asking you not to do this," she said.

Rep. Taffy Howard, R-Rapid City, said legislators shouldn't oppose the legislation on the grounds that it will hurt South Dakota's economy. South Dakota is breaking new ground with HB 1057, but the closest comparison is North Carolina's 2016 bathroom bill that required people to use the bathroom that matches their gender at birth.

People predicted that North Carolina's bill would result in a loss of revenue and tourists. But North Carolina's economy "did not collapse" and has continued to do well with record-breaking tourism and no impact on its revenue while the bill was in effect, she said.

"There is simply no discernible difference in the time before the bill passed to the time after," she said.

But Rep. Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls, argued that Howard was quoting North Carolina's overall tax revenue and didn't include the jobs and revenue lost, Healy said. The state lost dozens of conventions, sports tournaments, and a business halted its expansion that would have been 650 new jobs.

Healy also said bill supporters were using a debunked theory that the puberty blocker Lupron has caused thousands of deaths, but in reality, it's also used to treat patients dying of prostrate and breast cancer.

"When you take all of these false narratives away, you are left with a meaningless bill that purposely misrepresents medical practices and ultimately supports a transphobic agenda," she said.

How did we get here?

The bill came to the House floor after passing out of the House State Affairs committee last week on an 8-5 vote.

When filed earlier this month, Deutsch said the bill is "homegrown," and he began working on it nine months ago after he met transgender people via Twitter and Reddit. He said he was so moved by their experiences of being hurt by the transition process that he wanted to see if it was happening in South Dakota. He found that doctors are doing those treatments on children as young as 13 years old, he said.

Deutsch worked on the legislation with Kelsey Coalition, which states its goal is to promote "policies and laws to protect young people who identify as transgender."

Since HB 1057 was filed in South Dakota, similar bills have been filed in other states including Florida.

Earlier this week, Deutsch stood behind comments he'd previously made comparing gender confirmation surgeries to medical experiments conducted during the Holocaust.

What happens next?

The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration in committee. If passed in committee, it will advance to the Senate floor, the likely last stop before it would hit Gov. Kristi Noem's desk.

Noem last week expressed concern about the bill, though she has yet to say whether she supports it.