By The South Dakota House of Representatives supported a bill Wednesday, Feb. 19 at the Capitol in Pierre to prohibit transgender people from using restrooms or changing rooms aligned with their gender identity in public schools or on state-owned property — including prisons and higher education campuses.
The same body failed to advance a bill that would prevent transgender people from updating a birth certificate or driver’s license to reflect their gender identity.
House supports bathroom bill
The chamber endorsed House Bill 1259 in a 49-21 vote and sent it to the Senate.
The legislation requires schools and state-owned properties to designate multi-occupancy changing rooms, restrooms or sleeping quarters exclusively for females or males. That includes private property for school-sanctioned events. Schools would be responsible for finding “reasonable accommodation” for people, but state-owned properties would not have to provide any accommodations.
Similar bills were introduced in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2022.
Schaefbauer
Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer, R-Aberdeen, said she introduced the bill because “men shouldn’t be allowed in women’s private spaces.”
She repeatedly said during debate that her bill was an effort to protect women in a their “most vulnerable state of undress” though in an interview with The Aberdeen Insider prior to Wednesday’s debate, Schaefbauer conceded women are also behind a locked door during this “state of undress.”
School districts, local governments and the state could be sued and held responsible for plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs if someone sues them for a “member of the opposite sex” using a bathroom or changing room with the permission of the political entity or administration, or because the political entity didn’t take “reasonable steps to prohibit the member of the opposite sex” from using the space.
MORE: House defeats bill requiring schools to notify parents if students discuss gender identity
School districts differ on policies for bathroom use. The Vermilion School District has a policy that allows students to use the restroom they prefer that corresponds with their “consistently asserted gender.”
Lawmakers opposed to the legislation compared the bill’s intention to race-segregated bathrooms and worried about the potential legal ramifications school districts and the state could face if the bill passed. Rep. Mike Stevens, R-Yankton, said the bill is “not necessary” because school districts have managed their own policies and accommodations for decades.
Rep. Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls, told lawmakers who expressed safety concerns that it is illegal in the state to enter a bathroom with the intent to harm another person. She said the bill was rooted in “fear and misinformation.”
“Passing this bill is going to leave girls and women — transgender or not — vulnerable to accusations and discrimination based on how they conform to someone else’s standard of gender,” Healy said, “and protecting the rights of transgender people expands protections for all women by ensuring that nobody’s going to dictate who you are by how you look.”
Aberdeen resident Miranda Gohn testified during committee discussion against the bill and also spoke to The Aberdeen Insider prior to Wednesday’s hearing. She said she feared the ramifications this bill could cause, including people who would target others because they don’t think they’re in the right bathroom. She was also concerned about the requirement that someone who passes as one gender would be required to use the opposite bathroom were this bill to pass.
MORE: Legislative committee endorses prosecution of librarians who lend books deemed harmful to children
Asked by The Aberdeen Insider about the potential for other people to be targeted, Schaefbauer called the argument “straw man fear mongering.”
Places already offer reasonable accommodations, she said, and to her having men in women’s spaces is a crime against dignity.
“This won’t increase vigilance,” she said. “There are accommodations that need to be in place.”
During House debate, Schaefbauer was asked how visitors from other states will know about this requirement.
“This bill has nothing to do with anything but protecting women and girls in their private spaces,” she said.
Men should use a men’s bathroom and women should use a women’s bathroom, she said.
“If you’re confused, use a single stall bathroom,” Schaefbauer said.
Schaefbauer was also asked how the Department of Corrections addresses bathroom use in prison. Schaefbauer spoke in general terms about a woman’s right to dignity even while incarcerated but did not speak to specific policies.
Gohn, however, did have policy details. Placement of a transgender inmate, she said, is based on the extent of their transition and surgical modifications.
Opponents also pointed out that laws already protect others from instances of ill intent.
Nearly all the Aberdeen-area legislators joined Schaefbauer in supporting the bill. That included Reps. Spencer Gosch, R-Glenham, Logan Manhart, R-Aberdeen, Al Novstrup, R-Aberdeen and Chris Reder, R-Warner. Rep. Scott Moore, R-Ipswich, voted no.
The bill now goes to the senate for consideration.
House rejects legislation prohibiting gender changes on government documents
Lawmakers split 35-35 — and therefore failed to pass — House Bill 1260 on Wednesday. It would prohibit birth certificate and driver’s license updates regarding gender identification.
Schaefbauer, who introduced the bill, said it would provide clarity for governments to make public policy and for third parties, such as medical providers, to assist unresponsive patients in an emergency situation.
During debate Schaefbauer said men and women present different symptoms for emergency medical conditions, like, for example, a heart attack. Therefore it’s important for medical providers to know a person’s gender.
MORE: Busloads of public broadcasting supporters make case to avoid $3.6 million state budget cut
The bill would only allow birth certificates to be amended within a year of a person being born or after a court finds the document was factually inaccurate.
Mortenson
Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre told lawmakers he voted in support of the bathroom bill but would vote against HB 1260. He could identify how the prior legislation might “impact someone else.”
“I can’t see how it impacts me when it just says what’s on someone’s driver’s license,” Mortenson said.
Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, R-Sioux Falls, said the bill could negatively impact people with sex chromosome anomalies found later in life.
Gohn also spoke to The Aberdeen Insider about this proposal, which she described simply as, “using the power of government to be extremely cruel and a bully.”
Gohn said this bill also has the potential to harm someone who has quietly transitioned, but can’t have that reflected on their driver’s license. As a result, she said, it sets someone up for being excluded as a volunteer, for example, or a job candidate because the information on their ID isn’t a reflection of who they are.
After the tie vote, Schaefbauer announced an intent to reconsider the bill, which was done on Thursday, Feb. 20. That vote to reconsider failed 34-36.
In both votes, nearly all the Aberdeen-area legislators joined Schaefbauer in supporting the bill. Moore was the sole no vote from the three area districts.