South Dakota
SD committee votes to ‘define man and woman’ in statute
Ten members of the House State Affairs committee voted Friday, Feb. 20, to pass a bill “defining man and woman throughout the state,” which opponents said was discriminatory and would open the bill up to costly litigation.
The sole dissenting votes came from Democratic Reps. Erin Healy and Eric Emery, who both expressed concerns for how the bill would affect transgender and Two Spirit South Dakotans.
Healy said House Bill 1184 and similar bills that have come up in the past “attack trans individuals in South Dakota,” complicates their lives and makes it harder for them to exist.
“It feels like Groundhog’s Day,” Healy said. “We do this every year. This bill doesn’t solve a problem. I know some of you think it does. This bill is not saving lives. This bill is harming individuals.”
Emery noted that wíŋkte people, a traditional Two Spirit identity within Oceti Sakowin culture, have been held in high esteem for thousands of years as healers who brought medicine and brought people together. He said the bill is offensive to them.
“We constantly say we don’t want outside state influence, but yet it’s here,” Emery said. “I find it very humorous that we pick and choose when we want to use outside influence, when we say, ‘Stay out of our state, let us handle our own problems.’”
How did the discussion play out?
House Speaker Rep. Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, who is running for governor, brought HB 1184. He said the bill is about “not institutionalizing falsehoods of a particular gender ideology” and holding to “biological reality.” He also argued the bill wouldn’t prevent anyone from living their life how they choose.
Other proponents included lobbyists with Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Voice Action and Concerned Women for America.
Proponents, and the legislators who voted in support of the bill, largely argued that it was common sense legislation, cleans up existing statute, falls in line with a federal executive order, and argued there are only two sexes or genders.
Opponents included lobbyists with South Dakota for Equity, the South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women, and the ACLU of South Dakota.
They largely argued that HB 1184 leads to constitutional impacts, unintended consequences, and broad statutory mandates; conflicts with federal civil rights law; opens the door to litigation; legislates on multiple subjects; reduces South Dakotans to their reproductive capacity and function; and, doesn’t address any clearly demonstrated statewide crisis.