Last year, when South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem was keeping her state open despite pushes for endless lockdowns from the MSM, there was lots of talk about her as a dark horse 2024 Presidential candidate among conservative activists. Well, that talk is dead following her caving in to the radical transsexual lobby by using a technical veto on a bill prohibiting men from competing in women’s sports that she had previously promised to sign:
On Friday, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem balked on signing House Bill 1217 when the bill to promote fairness in women’s sports crossed her desk. But instead of vetoing the legislation, Noem returned the bill to the House with what she called “recommendations as to STYLE and FORM.” The Republican governor’s spin, however, cannot withstand scrutiny—most specifically her claimed reasoning for removing collegiate athletics from the bill’s protections.
As finalized by the South Dakota legislature, Section 1 of H.B. 1217 provided that athletic teams and sports in the state, including at institutions of higher education, must be expressly designated as male, female, or coeducation. It also stipulated that teams or sports designed as female must be “available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex.”
After promising to sign H.B. 1217, Noem instead took to Twitter on Friday to state why she had changed her mind and instead returned the bill to legislators for modifications. Noem elaborated on her reasoning in a letter to legislators.
Snip.
The most striking changes Noem demanded, however, came in her insistence that the legislature strike collegiate athletes from the bill’s protection and eliminate Section 4’s promise of a remedy to girls and women harmed in a violation of the bill, or who were retaliated against for complaining about violations of the law. Let’s break these changes down a bit, because they render the entire proposal meaningless.
As drafted by the South Dakota legislature, Section 1 of the bill mandated that athletic teams or sports, at the elementary, secondary, and collegiate level, designated as female be “available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex,” as verified by the students’ parents (or, if they are over 18, the student), based on “genetics and reproductive biology.” Then, in Section 4, the South Dakota legislature created a “cause of action,” or a right to sue, entitling students deprived of athletic opportunities or otherwise harmed as the result of a Section 1 violation to sue the school.
In other words, Section 1 demanded schools—including colleges—limit women’s sports to women. If an education institution violated that mandate and allowed a male student to join a female team, Section 4 provides that a female athlete injured by that violation could sue the school and obtain an injunction to prevent a continued violation and damages to remedy the harm.
Section 4 added a second protection for South Dakota student athletes: It also protected students from retaliation if they report violations of the act to a school representative, athletic association, or a state or federal governmental entity with oversight authority. Thus, for instance, if a female basketball player complained to an athletic department that a coach had allowed a male athlete to join her team, and the school responded by banning the complaining student from school-sponsored sports, the female student would be entitled to sue the school for retaliation.
In sending the bill back to the state legislature, Noem made two requests related to these interrelated provisions: She excluded collegiate athletes from the bill’s coverage and then directed the legislature to strike, or delete, Section 4 in its entirety.
In other words, Noem asked the South Dakota legislature to amend Section 1 so that the bill applied only to elementary and high school student athletes, while then denying those students any remedy for violations of the law. All that would remain, then, if the state legislature adopts Noem’s amendments, would be these two sections.
Snip.
Noem’s explanation would lead one to believe that H.B. 1217 conflicts in some way with the governing regulations of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and that if the bill became law, South Dakota collegiate athletes would be barred from competing in NCAA events and tournaments.
To the contrary, NCAA regulations provide that if a male competes on a female team, that makes the team a “mixed team,” which is ineligible to compete for a women’s NCAA championship. The NCAA does, however, allow a male “student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism,” to compete on a women’s team after “completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment.”
However, nothing in this NCAA policy requires a college or university to treat a male student-athlete as female. Given the number of religiously affiliated colleges and universities participating in NCAA sports, any such mandate would face tough opposition and likely be unworkable.
The NCAA also does not ban collegiate athletes from events or championship competitions if their schools do not allow transgender athletes to compete on teams of the opposite sex. That is why, when Idaho passed a bill last year similar to the bill pending in South Dakota, nothing of the sort happened to Idaho.
So not only is Noem surrendering on issue she promised to fight for, she’s preemptively surrendering on behalf of an institution that itself hasn’t yet surrendered.
Reality is not optional. Defending the reality of biological sex is not a hill that can be surrendered to radical social justice, especially since the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with conservatives. If Noem is unwilling to fight for that hill because it gives Chamber of Commerce RINOs a case of the vapors, then she isn’t the leader Republicans need.
Tags: college, Kristi Noem, NCAA, Social Justice Warriors, South Dakota, transexual
Kristi Noem is just another in the long, long list of political hypocrites.
Hmm. Feeling undecided on this. While striking section 4 takes the teeth out of the law, suing doesn’t feel like the appropriate recourse. Not sure what the correct recourse is, though.
On the other hand, if Idaho has already moved this direction, should be no harm following their footsteps.
Problem: Kristi Noem’s been good for us, and the alternative to Kristi Noem isn’t “a more conservative republican”, it’s a Democrat. It’s like Olympia Snow and Susan Collins: are we better off fielding a redder candidate and risk losing?
Minnesotan here – a rabidly libertarian one – who has watched Noem from across the short border for quite some time.
I’m going to wait a bit before I decide that she’s Satan personified. She’s exhibited good philosophies for quite some time, and this apparent error seems quite far out of her normal thought patterns.
I’ll wait to find out more about this before I make up my mind. This is too simple to be as it presents initially. There’s more here than what we’re being shown.
From what she said on “Tucker Carlson”, she rejected it because it is not defensible in court according to legal experts. It would handle the NCAA legal victories, further fueling their cause. Doesn’t sound like a cave to me.
South Dakota is not analogous to Maine. Trump got nearly 62% of the vote in South Dakota, so it should be easy to find a solid conservative who won’t cave to the tranny lobby. Whereas with Maine, you can make the argument that Susan Collins is the rightmost viable candidate.
I’d like to know who her “legal experts” are, because having practiced civil rights law for 31 years I think their opinion as related to Tucker is horse hockey. Where’s the legal action against Idaho by the fearsome NCAA?
Follow the money.
I am not a resident of SD. The bloviating is absurd.