SB113 affirms that a parent’s right to care for and make decisions for his or her child is a fundamental liberty.
The South Dakota State Senate passed SB113 on March 12, 2025 by a vote of 31 to 4. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because the upbringing, education, and care of children belongs to parents, not the government. Parental rights, as with all other fundamental rights, are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment.
HB1218 prohibits counties, townships, and municipalities from banning employees, officers, or volunteers from lawfully carrying concealed firearms and ammunition in government-owned or leased buildings, vehicles, or property.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives passed HB1218 on March 12, 2025 by a vote of 56 to 14. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because state preemption laws such as HB1218 uphold our God-given, Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms—a right that shall not be infringed.
HB1052 provides that no one is allowed to use eminent domain—the unconstitutional power to take private property—to build or operate a pipeline primarily meant for transporting carbon oxide.
The South Dakota State Senate passed HB1052 on March 4, 2025 by a vote of 23 to 12. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because eminent domain for the benefit of private corporations violates the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” and the Fourteenth Amendment adds that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” There is no constitutional justification for government involvement in carbon storage policies anywhere in the United States, especially under the pretext of combating “climate change.” The John Birch Society covered this issue extensively in its documentary, UNearthing the CO2 Pipeline. By blocking forced takings for carbon pipelines, this bill protects property rights, pushes back against globalist environmental agendas such as the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, and reinforces state sovereignty and individual liberty.
HB1132 enacts a childcare assistance program to allow certain childcare workers to qualify for help with their own childcare costs. Employees who work at least 30 hours per week at licensed or registered daycare programs and whose household income is at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level can qualify, and their household income will not be counted when determining eligibility. The law also updates rules for program administration, funding, and oversight.
The South Dakota State Senate passed HB1132 on March 4, 2025 by a vote of 20 to 14. We have assigned pluses to the nays because rather than promoting personal responsibility and a limited government role in the economy, HB1132 props up a specific industry—childcare—through taxpayer-funded subsidies and expanding government welfare. By excluding the household income of applicants from eligibility calculations, the program artificially qualifies more recipients, further distorting the market. A truly free and constitutional system would allow the private sector to respond to childcare needs without state interference or redistribution schemes that pick winners and losers.
HJR5002 applies to Congress for an Article V convention to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would establish term limits for members of Congress.
The South Dakota State Senate passed HJR5002 on March 4, 2025 by a vote of 25 to 10. We have assigned pluses to the nays because a so-called “Convention of the States” would not be of “limited” purpose. The vague and contradictory text contained in this joint resolution dangerously permits what Article V of the U.S. Constitution describes as a “Convention for proposing Amendments” or second constitutional convention. Article V was designed to correct structural deficiencies in the federal government, not the behavior of its elected officials. HJR5002 should be opposed in favor of less risky, more precise, and immediate solutions that would restore power back to the states and the people, such as clear-cut proposals in Congress to repeal bad amendments or state nullification of specific unconstitutional federal laws.
HB1152 prohibits South Dakota officials and employees from enforcing or implementing any mandates, regulations, fees, or taxes from intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations, World Economic Forum, or World Health Organization. It declares that such organizations have no authority within the state.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives rejected HB1152 on February 18, 2025 by a vote of 32 to 37. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because international organizations such as the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and World Health Organization possess no constitutional authority over the American people or the states. Furthermore, the federal government’s involvement in these bodies extends beyond its constitutional limits and aligns with globalist agendas that undermine national sovereignty and self-governance. States must nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government.
HB1173 removes the previous cap of $2 per front foot per year on property assessments for road improvements.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives passed HB1173 on February 13, 2025 by a vote of 61 to 7. We have assigned pluses to the nays because property taxes are antithetical to property rights, and removing the cap opens the door for excessive and potentially abusive local taxation. Without limits, local governments could potentially raise assessments to the point of displacing residents—functionally forcing them out without using eminent domain. Eliminating the $2 per front foot cap will likely lead to significantly higher costs for property owners, with no meaningful safeguards. This bill represents increased government overreach and imposes a heavier financial burden on taxpayers, especially those in areas targeted for frequent or large-scale road projects.
SJR502 applies to Congress to call an Article V convention to propose amendments that would impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and establish term limits for Congress and other federal officials.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives rejected SJR502 on February 4, 2025 by a vote of 29 to 38. We have assigned pluses to the nays because a so-called “Convention of the States” would not be of “limited” purpose. The vague and contradictory text contained in this joint resolution dangerously permits what Article V of the U.S. Constitution describes as a “Convention for proposing Amendments” or second constitutional convention. Article V was designed to correct structural deficiencies in the federal government, not the behavior of its elected officials. SJR502 should be opposed in favor of less risky, more precise, and immediate solutions that would restore power to the states and the people, such as clear-cut proposals in Congress to repeal bad amendments or state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws.
SB82 requires an official declaration of war or other congressional action before the South Dakota National Guard may be deployed by the federal government.
The South Dakota State Senate rejected SB82 on February 3, 2025 by a vote of 6 to 29. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because this bill would nullify unconstitutional federal deployments of the National Guard. A congressional declaration of war is constitutionally required to enter into a foreign conflict or for another constitutional reason, in accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 and 15, of the U.S. Constitution.
HB1052 provides that no one is allowed to use eminent domain—the government’s unconstitutional power to take private property—to build or operate a pipeline primarily meant for transporting carbon oxide.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives passed HB1052 on January 27, 2025 by a vote of 49 to 19. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because eminent domain for the benefit of private corporations violates the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” and the Fourteenth Amendment adds that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” There is no constitutional justification for government involvement in carbon storage policies anywhere in the United States, especially under the pretext of combating “climate change.” The John Birch Society covered this issue extensively in its documentary, UNearthing the CO2 Pipeline. By blocking forced takings for carbon pipelines, this bill protects property rights, pushes back against globalist environmental agendas such as the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, and reinforces state sovereignty and individual liberty.
SB1 updates the state’s adoption of federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations to include all changes made through January 1, 2025. It clarifies that most federal trucking rules apply to both interstate and intrastate operations. It also sets minimum driver age requirements—21 for interstate, hazardous materials, and large passenger vehicles, and 18 for others.
The South Dakota State Senate passed SB1 on January 22, 2025 by a vote of 35 to 0. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill surrenders state sovereignty to federal bureaucrats. By aligning state policy with regulations from the U.S. Department of Transportation, it interferes in the free market by setting age limits, and invites federal control over private industry. Such overreach infringes on the 10th Amendment’s protection of state sovereignty, the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of individual rights, and the God-given rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” States must resist by nullifying these unconstitutional mandates.
HJR5003 proposes a change to South Dakota’s constitution that would require any future constitutional amendment to receive at least 60 percent of the vote, rather than a simple majority, to be approved.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives passed HJR5003 on January 22, 2025 by a vote of 61 to 5. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because a supermajority of the electorate—not the current threshold of only more than 50 percent of voters—should be required to approve of any legitimate changes to the South Dakota Constitution. While the United States Founders believed that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, they understood that a simple majority is insufficient to protecting the individual rights and liberty of the people from the “dangers of democracy,” which threaten to result in a “tyranny of the majority” or “elective despotism.” This explains why the U.S. Constitution, in Article IV, Section 4, explicitly guarantees to “every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” It provides that government be limited to the ‘rule of law,’ as opposed to mere ‘majority rule’ in a democracy.
SB144 appropriates $10,000,000 from the general fund to the Aeronautics Commission for grants aimed at enhancing airport terminal infrastructure projects, including expansion and meeting future capacity needs at public airports.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives passed SB144 on March 6, 2024 by a vote of 55 to 15. We have assigned pluses to the nays because funding for airport terminal infrastructure projects should not be the government’s responsibility. Government-issued grants often give the government or bureaucracy the authority to choose winners and losers, leading to an expansion of government and increased interference in the private sector.
HB1186 establishes that a carbon pipeline easement is a right granted by a landowner for transmitting carbon dioxide by pipeline. The easement must be in writing, recorded, and filed with the county’s register of deeds. The easement is valid for up to 99 years and becomes void if business operations do not start within five years of recording. Any mortgages or encumbrances on the easement are the easement holder’s responsibility and do not affect the landowner.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives passed HB1186 on March 6, 2024 by a vote of 41 to 29. We have assigned pluses to the nays because, while this bill may appear as if it protects property owners, it still allows eminent domain for carbon-capture pipelines where easements will be in place for 99 years or more. Additionally, these carbon-capture pipelines have direct ties to the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 and the disingenuous environmental movement, and states should reject these unconstitutional acts at all costs.
SB201 facilitates the construction of carbon-capture pipelines that threaten property rights, permits state authorities to override local ordinances regulating the pipelines for safety or economic reasons, and fails to impose restrictions on eminent domain.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives passed SB201 on March 6, 2024 by a vote of 39 to 31. We have assigned pluses to the nays because state governments should not implement any aspect of the UN’s Agenda 2030, as it is unconstitutional and undermines state sovereignty. Additionally, this legislation advances the Marxist climate-change agenda and threatens property rights.
HB1178 prohibits the Board of Regents or any institution under its control from using state resources for drag shows or other “obscene live conduct” on college campuses.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives passed HB1178 on February 29, 2024 by a vote of 62 to 7. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because taxpayer dollars should not go toward programs with a strong leftist agenda.
HB1219 prohibits companies from using eminent domain to construct pipelines primarily for transporting carbon oxide for geological storage or sequestration.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives rejected to place HB1219 on the calendar by a vote of 32 to 36. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because eminent domain for private corporations violates the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment explicitly states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment declares, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
SB115 prohibits counties, townships, and municipalities in South Dakota from establishing ordinances, orders, or rules that implement a guaranteed income program.
The South Dakota State House of Representatives passed SB115 on February 26, 2024 by a vote of 64 to 5. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because the concept of a “guaranteed income” (i.e., ‘universal basic income’) relies on the immoral and anti-constitutional act of government-imposed theft disguised as taxation, which takes from citizens the wages they have rightfully earned. This manifestly socialist wealth-redistribution scheme violates both the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, which were intended to protect against undue deprivation or disparagement of a person’s “property” and provide “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans.
SB201 facilitates the construction of carbon-capture pipelines that threaten property rights, permits state authorities to override local ordinances regulating the pipelines for safety or economic reasons, and fails to impose restrictions on eminent domain.
The South Dakota State Senate passed SB201 on March 6, 2024 by a vote of 24 to 10. We have assigned pluses to the nays because state governments should not implement any aspect of the UN’s Agenda 2030, as it is unconstitutional and undermines state sovereignty. Additionally, this legislation advances the Marxist climate-change agenda and threatens property rights.
SB144 appropriates $10,000,000 from the general fund to the Aeronautics Commission for grants aimed at enhancing airport terminal infrastructure projects, including expansion and meeting future capacity needs at public airports.
The South Dakota State Senate passed SB144 on March 6, 2024 by a vote of 27 to 6. We have assigned pluses to the nays because funding for airport terminal infrastructure projects should not be the government’s responsibility. Government-issued grants often give the government or bureaucracy the authority to choose winners and losers, leading to an expansion of government and increased interference in the private sector.
HB1186 establishes that a carbon pipeline easement is a right granted by a landowner for transmitting carbon dioxide by pipeline. The easement must be in writing, recorded, and filed with the county’s register of deeds. The easement is valid for up to ninety-nine years and becomes void if business operations do not start within five years of recording. Any mortgages or encumbrances on the easement are the easement holder’s responsibility and do not affect the landowner.
The South Dakota State Senate passed HB1186 on March 6, 2024 by a vote of 24 to 10. We have assigned pluses to the nays because, while this bill may appear as if it protects property owners, it still allows eminent domain for carbon-capture pipelines where easements will be in place for 99 years or more. Additionally, these carbon-capture pipelines have direct ties to the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 and the disingenuous environmental movement, and states should reject these unconstitutional acts at all costs.
HB1131 mandates the South Dakota Department of Public Safety to waive the fee for an original or duplicate nondriver identification card one time for applicants who are homeless.
The South Dakota State Senate passed HB1131 on February 27, 2024 by a vote of 27 to 6. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill expands government intervention and imposes additional financial burdens on taxpayers, essentially picking winners and losers. This bill is another step toward socialism as it undermines the principles of fiscal responsibility and personal accountability.
HB1161 prohibits the state of South Dakota and its agencies from accepting central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) for any payments, including taxes, fees, and debts. Additionally, it mandates that businesses accepting CBDCs must also accept another form of legal tender.
The South Dakota State Senate passed HB1161 on February 15, 2024 by a vote of 32 to 1. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution state that only Congress has the power to coin money. States should take steps to return to the gold standard and embrace the use of real money. Digital currency can be easily tracked, allowing the government to monitor all financial transactions. This could lead to unconstitutional and extensive surveillance of individuals’ financial activities, eroding personal privacy and potentially freezing assets, which is already happening in other countries.
SB115 prohibits counties, townships, and municipalities in South Dakota from establishing ordinances, orders, or rules that implement a guaranteed income program.
The South Dakota State Senate passed SB115 on February 7, 2024 by a vote of 64 to 5. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because the concept of a “guaranteed income” (i.e., ‘universal basic income’) relies on the immoral and anti-constitutional act of government-imposed theft disguised as taxation, which takes from citizens the wages they have rightfully earned. This manifestly socialist wealth-redistribution scheme violates both the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, which were intended to protect against undue deprivation or disparagement of a person’s “property” and provide “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans.
HB1220 provides that that a female who undergoes an unlawful abortion may not be held criminally liable.
The Senate passed HB1220 on March 6, 2023, by a vote of 33 to 1. We have assigned pluses to the nays because justice is the overall purpose and greatest responsibility of civil government. The state has a dual role of providing equal justice under the law by both protecting the unalienable right to life for each person and punishing any person who deprives it. South Dakota has a duty to secure this most sacred and fundamental right, as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments of U.S. Constitution.
SB210 is the General Appropriations Act for the state budget of South Dakota. It appropriates $7.4 billion for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024.
The Senate passed SB210 on March 3, 2023, by a vote of 29 to 3. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill is comprised of profligate amounts of illegitimate taxation and spending, not only keeping South Dakota dependent on $3.5 billion of mostly unconstitutional federal funds, but providing significant increases in state aid to K-12 education and healthcare providers. Fiscal responsibility requires opposing the use of federal taxpayer money for purposes not authorized under Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, while at the same time rejecting the notion that South Dakotans should be forced to furnish their hard-earned state tax dollars for public education or healthcare—neither of which is the proper role of limited government.
HB1116 would prohibit the use of state resources, such as by public libraries or public school districts, in hosting lewd or lascivious content.
The Senate failed to pass HB1116 on March 2, 2023, by a vote of 15 to 18. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because citizens have the right—which the state has a duty to uphold—to protect both themselves and their children from obscene, indecent, or profane activity. This right of the people is retained under and guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
SB55 prevents the State Board of Elections from authorizing and a political subdivision from establishing a system of ranked-choice voting.
The House passed SB55 on March 1, 2023, by vote of 63 to 5. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because states should oppose all attempts to enact ranked-choice voting. This complicated, multiple-round, and unconstitutional method weakens election integrity by allowing a candidate to potentially win without genuine support from a plurality of voters. The scheme’s ballot casting requirements not only undermine each citizen’s right to vote, but could prevent them from being able to vote for the one and only candidate of their choice.
HB1193 would adopt a new definition of “electronic money” in the Uniform Commercial Code.
The Senate passed HB1193 on March 1, 2023, by a vote of 24 to 9, prior it being vetoed by the Governor. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill disturbingly changes the definition of money to end free-market-based cryptocurrencies and pave the way for an exclusively government-controlled Central Bank Digital Currency—presenting a significant danger to Americans’ civil liberties. The power to “coin money,” let alone authorize or adopt the use of “electronic money,” is among the powers denied to the States in Article 1, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution.
HB1220 provides that that a female who undergoes an unlawful abortion may not be held criminally liable.
The House passed HB1220 on February 21, 2023, by a vote of 63 to 7. We have assigned pluses to the nays because justice is the overall purpose and greatest responsibility of civil government. The state has a dual role of providing equal justice under the law by both protecting the unalienable right to life for each person and punishing any person who deprives it. South Dakota has a duty to secure this most sacred and fundamental right, as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments of U.S. Constitution.
HB1235 declares that a person has the right to be exempt from any COVID-19 vaccination mandate on the basis of conscience. This act would not apply to public or private entities in violation of certain federal regulations or the South Dakota National Guard
The House failed to pass HB1235 on February 16, 2023, by a vote of 30 to 39. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because vaccine mandates ought to be nullified, as an individual’s non-injurious activities, including personal health care decisions, are private matters that should not be under federal, state, or local jurisdiction in the United States. To compel American citizens to receive medical treatment would be to violate their fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
HB1193 would adopt a new definition of “electronic money” in the Uniform Commercial Code.
The House passed HB1193 on February 13, 2023, by a vote of 49 to 17, prior it being vetoed by the Governor. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill disturbingly changes the definition of money to end free-market-based cryptocurrencies and pave the way for an exclusively government-controlled Central Bank Digital Currency—presenting a significant danger to Americans’ civil liberties. The power to “coin money,” let alone authorize or adopt the use of “electronic money,” is among the powers denied to the States in Article 1, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution.
HB1133 defines a commodity for the purpose of qualifying as a common carrier.
The House passed HB1133 on February 9, 2023, by a vote of 40 to 28. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because this bill would have effectively banned the abuse of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines by clarifying that they are not common carriers of a commodity under South Dakota law. The recent and unjust expansion of carbon capture storage systems in the United States is closely connected to the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for “sustainable development,” and threatens the property rights of American farmers and ranchers.
HB1080 prohibits certain medical and surgical interventions on minor patients, including puberty blockers and gender affirmation surgeries.
The Senate passed HB1080 on February 9, 2023, by a vote of 30 to 4. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because South Dakota acted lawfully to ban sex mutilation against minors, which not only violates the unalienable right to life and limb of children, but absurdly attempts to erase biological “sex” with fictional “gender” constructs. According to the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the States have a duty to protect the humanity of all people—male and female—who, as the Declaration of Independence affirms, are created by God and form the basis of individual and family self-government.
SB55 prevents the State Board of Elections from authorizing and a political subdivision from establishing a system of ranked-choice voting.
The Senate passed SB55 on February 2, 2023, by vote of 31 to 4. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because states should oppose all attempts to enact ranked-choice voting. This complicated, multiple-round, and unconstitutional method weakens election integrity by allowing a candidate to potentially win without genuine support from a plurality of voters. The scheme’s ballot casting requirements not only undermine each citizen’s right to vote, but could prevent them from being able to vote for the one and only candidate of their choice.
HB1080 prohibits certain medical and surgical interventions on minor patients, including puberty blockers and gender affirmation surgeries.
The House passed HB1080 on February 2, 2023, by a vote of 60 to 10. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because South Dakota acted lawfully to ban sex mutilation against minors, which not only violates the unalienable right to life and limb of children, but absurdly attempts to erase biological “sex” with fictional “gender” constructs. According to the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the States have a duty to protect the humanity of all people—male and female—who, as the Declaration of Independence affirms, are created by God and form the basis of individual and family self-government.
HB1340 is the General Appropriations Act for the State of South Dakota. As appropriated by the Legislature, it provides approximately $5.9 billion in funding for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023.
The Senate passed HB1340 on March 10, 2022, by a vote of 31 to 1. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this spending plan for FY2023 includes $2.3 billion of mostly unconstitutional federal funds, representing nearly 40% of the entire state budget. It not only increases subsidies for Medicaid providers, but appropriates $49.6 million more in federal dollars than requested by the Governor. States should oppose the use of federal taxpayer money for purposes not authorized under Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution.
HB1340 is the General Appropriations Act for the State of South Dakota. As appropriated by the Legislature, it provides approximately $5.9 billion in funding for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023.
The House passed HB1340 on March 10, 2022, by a vote of 59 to 10. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this spending plan for FY2023 includes $2.3 billion of mostly unconstitutional federal funds, representing nearly 40% of the entire state budget. It not only increases subsidies for Medicaid providers, but appropriates $49.6 million more in federal dollars than requested by the Governor. States should oppose the use of federal taxpayer money for purposes not authorized under Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution.
SB211 (House Engrossed) declares that a person may exercise their right of conscience as a basis for exemption from any COVID-19 vaccination mandate by any entity. This act would not apply to certain health care facilities and the South Dakota National Guard.
The House passed SB211 on March 7, 2022, by a vote of 37 to 32. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because vaccine mandates should be opposed, as an individual’s non-injurious activities, including personal health care decisions, are not the legitimate object of government, nor should be under federal, state, or local jurisdiction in the United States. To compel American citizens to receive medical treatment would be to violate their fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
HB1223 would authorize the informed consent by a pregnant minor for any medical or dental procedure or service related to the minor’s prenatal care, the delivery process, or postnatal care if the minor’s parent or guardian is either “unavailable or withholds consent.”
The Senate passed HB1223 on March 2, 2022, by a vote of 30 to 5. We have assigned pluses to the nays because parents have the fundamental right to custody and control of their minor children, including healthcare decisions. Parental rights, as with all other constitutional rights, are protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Further, HB1223 does not recognize that South Dakota law already provides for limited exceptions in which physicians and/or the state can intercede and act in the best interests of a minor child.
HB1223 would authorize the informed consent by a pregnant minor for any medical or dental procedure or service related to the minor’s prenatal care, the delivery process, or postnatal care if the minor’s parent or guardian is either “unavailable or withholds consent.”
The House passed HB1223 on February 23, 2022, by a vote of 37 to 33. We have assigned pluses to the nays because parents have the fundamental right to custody and control of their minor children, including healthcare decisions. Parental rights, as with all other constitutional rights, are protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Further, HB1223 does not recognize that South Dakota law already provides for limited exceptions in which physicians and/or the state can intercede and act in the best interests of a minor child.
SB211 (Senate Committee Engrossed) would provide that employers must allow medical, religious, and natural immunity-based exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination requirements. This act would not apply to certain health care facilities and the South Dakota National Guard.
The Senate passed SB211 on February 14, 2022, by a vote of 31 to 4. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because vaccine mandates should be opposed, as an individual’s non-injurious activities, including personal health care decisions, are not the legitimate object of government, nor should be under federal, state, or local jurisdiction in the United States. To compel American citizens to receive medical treatment would be to violate their fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
HJR5001 would apply to Congress for a “convention of states under Article V of the Constitution of the United States, to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.”
The Senate failed to pass HJR5001 on February 9, 2022, by a vote of 16 to 19. We have assigned pluses to the nays because states should act immediately to nullify all unconstitutional federal laws, rather than risk an Article V or second constitutional convention. Article V of the U.S. Constitution was designed to correct structural deficiencies in the federal government, not the failure of elected officials to uphold their oath of office.
HJR5001 would apply to Congress for a “convention of states under Article V of the Constitution of the United States, to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.”
The House passed HJR5001 on January 25, 2022, by a vote of 39 to 30. We have assigned pluses to the nays because states should act immediately to nullify all unconstitutional federal laws, rather than risk an Article V or second constitutional convention. Article V of the U.S. Constitution was designed to correct structural deficiencies in the federal government, not the failure of elected officials to uphold their oath of office.
HB1052 would limit the enforcement of federal laws and directives related to firearms, ammunitions, and components or accessories.
The House failed to pass HB1052 on February 22, 2022, by a vote of 28 to 39. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the fundamental right of the American people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Whenever the federal government assumes unconstitutional firearms restrictions, state nullification of such acts is protected by the 10th Amendment.
SB177 revises the provisions of parental choice regarding compulsory school attendance by expanding “alternative instruction” (e.g., home education) options. It removes certain reporting and testing requirements, while allowing participation in interscholastic activities.
The Senate passed SB177 on February 17, 2021, by a vote of 21 to 14. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because a child’s education is the responsibility of–and a fundamental right of choice retained by–the parents, not the government. Parental rights, as with all other constitutional rights, are protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
SB177 revises the provisions of parental choice regarding compulsory school attendance by expanding “alternative instruction” (e.g., home education) options. It removes certain reporting and testing requirements, while allowing participation in interscholastic activities.
The House passed SB177 on March 2, 2021, by a vote of 41 to 27. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because a child’s education is the responsibility of–and a fundamental right of choice retained by–the parents, not the government. Parental rights, as with all other constitutional rights, are protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
SJR501 would rescind HJR 1001, adopted by the Legislature in 2015, which applied to Congress to “call an Article V convention of the states for the sole purpose of proposing a federal balanced budget amendment.”
The Senate failed to pass SJR501 on February 9, 2021, by a vote of 17 to 18. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because efforts to call an Article V or second constitutional convention should be resisted. Rather, states should seek to immediately nullify all unconstitutional federal laws. Article V of the U.S. Constitution was designed to correct structural deficiencies in the federal government, not the failure of elected officials to uphold their oath of office.