The abortion bill HB-1217 passed the House yesterday 49-19. It was amazing to hear debate which actually compared an abortion to a vasectomy as if they were even remotely equal! Really? Unless it was horribly, horribly botched, a vasectomy doesn't result in the dismembering and death of a separate, living and unique human being (all without anesthesia- btw… some studies show a baby feels pain at eight weeks). In any case, the vasectomy point fell flat the moment the first guy got up to say vasectomies get scheduled after a visit with a doctor, not right now same day. That's the point of HB1217– a waiting period which is preceded and succeeded by a woman being given info from all sides of this issue.

It is well established in South Dakota (through nearly 2000 women's oral and written testimonies given a legislative task force) that there is NO doctor/patient relationship in abortion practice right now. Virtually all said their decision was ill-informed or coerced. They testified they were left to themselves before and after. Those opposing any attempts to make abortion rare make hay about HB1217 requiring women to visit a pregnancy help center and how these are places with "no medical certification or training." Aside from that not being true, what IS true is that the South Dakota Task Force on Abortion discovered those who sell abortions in our state are actually the ones operating with no expertise. Even the lone doc they fly in and out of our state to attend the five minutes of the abortion procedure repeatedly testified while being deposed for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that she wouldn't disclose biological facts about a fetus, even if a woman asked!!

This is an outfit that fights a woman's access to ANY medical advancements which might hurt abortion sales. Those who sell abortions know 90% of abortion-bound women who see a sonogram choose LIFE and so they fight vigorously to keep women from anything but 1973-era technology.  Their clinics ARE the back alley - dangerous. (Please read at least the first paragraph of that link).  But back on point, South Dakota's sole abortion store is staffed by "patient educators", according to the legislative task force, people who have no knowledge of human embryology, human genetics or molecular biology. One of my favorite stories from the depositions now before the Eighth Circuit Court is of the former director of abortion store in Sioux Falls testifying under oath, actually guessing under oath, that humans have thirteen chromosomes. She had no idea when a human heart started beating. And so, HB1217 does what the legislative task force concluded needed to be done… put additional laws forth in South Dakota to make these supposed abortion doctors act like real doctors.

And please, enough already with the bloviating about how "we South Dakotans have twice voted to leave the abortion issue alone, but that the Legislature doesn’t get the message." Those who persistently defend the indefensible can be often heard misinterpreting the results of our two recent state-wide attempts to ban abortion. Remarkably the debate in both those attempts focused solely on the exceptions (rape, incest, incompatible with life fetal anomalies) and can in no way be interpreted to mean South Dakotans are just fine with the present practice of using abortion as back-up birth control. My goodness, 46% of our state voted for a TOTAL ban on ALL abortions (except for life/health of mom) in 2006. In 2008, our initiated measure failed because those who sell abortions were successful at diverting all attention off abortion being used as birth control to a several month debate on how, if at all, the 2008 ban would, or would not, have affected one single pregnant mom in South Dakota, a mom with a rare twin-to-twin pregnancy. In other words, the 2008 ban became about ONE abortion in South Dakota, not all abortions in South Dakota.  My point, the votes of 2006 and 2008 can not be construed to show a desire among South Dakotans to "leave the abortion issue alone."

It has been established in South Dakota by legislative finding that the process that takes place in an abortion procedure in South Dakota creates a coercive environment; women pressured to make a decision quickly, many testified they wanted to change their decision and were not permitted to, we have depositions of women saying they were told to "shut up and stop crying" and they sign consents and pay before seeing a doctor. Under oath, even Planned Parenthood admits 25% of women are "crying and bawling" during "pre-abortion counseling." You'd think if these were indeed legitimate "health care" shops someone would suggest a mom take some time to let the emotions settle so she doesn't do something under emotional duress that she might regret later.  But no, as any good salesman would do, they nail down the sale before a moment of clarity comes to the buyer. Abortion remains the absolute lowest form of anything that can even remotely be called healthcare.  HB1217 changes all that because women deserve better.

The respectability facade Planned Parenthood has enjoyed for several decades is finally shattering. The US House of Representatives voted just a few days ago to defund Planned Parenthood (they get $317+ million taxpayer dollars a year). Congress is voting to defund this house of horrors because repeatedly they are caught covering up sex crimes against minors allowing the perp to stay in business and hurt more women. They were recently caught providing a safe haven for sex traffickers. I may write elsewhere the horrors I read in a 250 grand jury report (huge file pdf alert) from Pennsylvania which concludes that a system-wide failure of government to protect women seeking abortion and that this failure is in part due to timidity as a result of political correctness and false assumptions that someone is making sure there is oversight. The former governor of Pennsylvania writes how he was "flabbergasted by lax abortion scrutiny… to learn that the Department of Health did not think their authority to protect public health extended to clinics offering abortion services."

Mark my words, the day is coming when class action lawsuits start popping up all over America by women in their twenties and thirties who start coming forward saying - I was raped and repeatedly molested when I was 15 by a 29 year old and Planned Parenthood knew it and my life today is a wreck because that started the downward spiral which is so common with women who've had abortion. Imagine that, class action suits against Planned Parenthood for their daily practice of covering up sex crimes against minors. You thought the Catholic priest pedophilia lawsuits that hammered the dioceses in the US were financially substantial ($2.6 BILLION in abuse related costs/settlements from 1950-2009). Just wait for this to come forth.

Those of you who are regular readers here know I'm able to go on and on and on with this issue. For now, read this article in Slate about "What Happened to the Women - A Grand Jury says Kermit Gosnell Mistreated and Killed Abortion Patients. Why did nobody stop him?" It's actually part one of something called "The Back Alley: How the Politics of Abortion Protects Bad Clinics."

A closing thought on why HB1217's seventy-two hour waiting period is reasonable for a major life and death medical decision… some studies show 30% of women regret their abortion and say it hurt them. Yet, even if it was only one in ten not three in ten—- talk about a deadly game of russian roulette!!!  Can you even fathom any official tolerance or FDA approval for any other, even minor procedure where three out of ten report negative fallout as a result?? A seventy-two hour waiting period is the least we can do. Ignore those who sell abortion when they tell you otherwise.

HB1217 now goes to the Senate and I expect it to pass there as well, especially after I print this article for my colleagues in the Senate to consider.

Here again is another installment in my series explaining my votes and positions this legislative session. Tomorrow I'm speaking at a Sioux Falls Tea Party luncheon and will surely have some 'splaining to do as to why I did not vote to support my friend Rep. Manny Steele's Immigration legislation, HB-1198.

For starters, be careful not to rush to judgment when a legislator votes in a way that surprises you. In this case it would be false to assume I'm soft on illegal immigration. I'd happily send you (free of charge) a fifty-minute talk I gave on the topic– A Christian Case AGAINST Amnesty for Illegals.  You can read the main points of that message here - - A Christian Case AGAINST Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants. The bottom line, I'm not soft on illegal immigration– 1) I think we have a MAJOR immigration problem in this country and that Obama isn't doing his job. South Dakota does have some immigration issues though we heard ICE agents overseeing this region shockingly say they weren't even aware of some of our more newsworthy   infractions). And, 2) I'm an advocate for the FAIRTAX which puts 12 million illegal immigrants ON the tax roles - it's ridiculous we have illegals here using our roads, schools, and medical services and they aren't at least paying taxes. So, I'm not soft on illegal immigration.

Another key point to consider has to do with rules and procedures. The vote to kill Rep. Steele's immigration bill in committee was 11-2. This past week he attempted to smoke it out using a rule or procedure where one third of the members of the House can stand and demand the bill come to the House floor, bypassing the non-recommendation vote of the committee. Make no mistake, we have Obamacare on the books today because procedural gymnastics were used to push through a bill that had no chance using the regular rules. I also didn't support smoke out efforts on two other bills this week - the nullification of Obamacare bill and the Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients bill. In those two cases, my votes to not support the smokeout were not related to my support of the bill. In fact, I voted for both already, and even spoke strongly from the floor in favor of the Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients bill. So, if I was for these bills, why not support them being smoked out?

There is no doubt the smoke out, under our adopted legislative rules, is a legal and a legitimate measure of last report for a bill that dies in committee. But it should only be used in rare cases where the bill did not get a fair hearing in committee, or if there has since been new information that needs to be discussed. Efforts to say the immigration bill did not receive a fair hearing in committee were unconvincing to me. We have committees for a reason - 600 bills are on the table here, and we need to divide and conquer. Bills that don't make it through committee, most of the time, were unconvincing on their merits. Sponsors should take note on which points they lost in Committee and try again next year. So, I voted no on the immigration bill for procedural reasons. Smokeouts are great when it's your favorite bill but the flip side is they can also work against what is best. Enough now on this point that voters ought not rush to judgment about a particular vote. Those of us voting aren't voting on a whim. Trust me, you think long and hard before voting against a bill sponsored by a friend. And, you don't take it personal, I had very few Republican colleagues standing with me against predatory lending. I guess I can only speak for myself, I'm voting my principles and I hope that is evident and respected whether you like the vote or not.

To continue now, I will state what I've stated elsewhere that even if this came to the House floor via a committee recommendation, I was prepared to vote NO. Why? Two reasons. First, a major tenet of the bill was to make it illegal to transport illegals knowingly.

Section 7. No person may transport or move or attempt to transport or move any illegal alien in this state in a means of transportation if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered, or remains in the United States in violations of law.

Nuns from all over our state were contacting us to share their concern that this would criminalize simple acts of Christian compassion and the nuns were saying they will go to jail before they stop showing Christian compassion. It was not uncommon to hear conversations among those supporting the bill that– so what, it's illegal and if they break the law we'll put nuns in jail. They lose me there. South Dakota would be a better place if we'd listen to the Presentation Sisters more often. BTW, I'm not Catholic. But I have praised the Presentation Sisters before - I've noted that Sanford Health appears morally unanchored and adrift on the sea of profitability. ((You can debate that if you like, the comment was made in the context of their dollar-driven science/research hopes of experimenting on human embyros. In that context, and in the context of the abortion debate here, I've said at least Avera Health has the Presentations Sisters as a moral anchor.))

You get the idea– this bill, in my view, was devoid of Christian charity and compassion. Strategically, considering the Arizona bill was so unpopular, it would have been helpful to the cause here to distance our bill from the Arizona bill by saying we have a more compassionate approach. I probably would have supported the bill if Sections 7-9 were amended somehow and if there were some corresponding gestures of concern for the people directly involved in this issue. Namely, rather than just cold, cut and dry statements of– they don't belong here– it would help to introduce legislation like this by leading off with an acknowledgment of the complexity of this issue, acknowledging one of the biggest tangled knots for Christians trying to sort all this out is how current immigration policy splits up families - legal's and illegals. Also, it would really help to decry the American Greed which manifests in paying illegals less so we can make more.

This lack of charity is my second concern. It is probably the case that I am notably more connected internationally and with internationals here than the average South Dakotan. The lack of charity in this bill and those like it, in my view and from what I'm hearing from my international friends, is effectually disinfranchizing large voting blocks of LEGAL hispanics in America. America has a majority of pro-life voters, but only because America is filling up with LEGAL hispanics who are mainly Catholic and Pro-life. Political conservatives as I need to wake up to how these voters will quickly shift, if they haven't already, to left-leaning candidates in the coming election because those on the right lacked charity toward the relatives of the ones already here legally. The same is true regarding Native Americans in our state. Natives here, as a block have, voted Democratically in South Dakota over and over again even though the Democrats haven't done much more than use them. It's my view that Republicans in our state, by and large, have little to no charity toward Natives. That is changing and needs to change.

I recieved an email this week from a notable republican in South Dakota thanking me for not supporting HB-1198.  The note seemed a bit like a commentary on 1 Corinthians 13… the greatest of these is love (charity). I share that to illustrate that how others besides me, others who should be for this, are also asking… where is the love?

Quite the firestorm here today in our state capital. A bill I co-sponsored has been spun out of control by pro-abortion bloggers and then, even media venues we'd hope would be more responsible ran with headlines like… House Bill Could Make Killing Abortion Doctors A Justifiable Homicide.  In moments those kinds of headlines spread like wildfire all over the nation putting South Dakota's legislature, once more, unfairly, in a bad light.

Those who've read my blog here these past few years know I fight hard for the unborn and yet, I was quick to renounce the 2009 cold-blooded murder of Dr. Tiller, the late-term abortion doctor in Wichita who killed more babies than America lost soldiers in Vietnam.  Even so, the same day he was gunned down in his church, I said this: "Really, really, horrible and sad. Every life is valuable, including Tiller's."

It is not true that I or any other legislator here in Pierre are advocating killing abortion doctors. This is the amended language in HB-1171 which is causing this stir:

Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being
accomplished.

I thought I'd share here what I wrote on the online forum at the Argus Leader about media spin today

No legislator in South Dakota is advocating killing abortionists. HB1171 applies to attempts to MURDER the unborn. Abortion in South Dakota is NOT murder therefore HB1171 as amended applies to everyone else BUT abortionists. This bill has nothing to do with abortion or abortion doctors. It's disappointing the Argus went with these headlines. 

Though I'm listed a co-sponsor, HB1171 was hoghoused/extensively amended in the Judiciary Committee and the bill now clearly says on the top for all to read - "…extensively amended and may no longer be consistent with the original intention or the sponsor(s)." In other words, it's not the bill I signed.

The ORIGINAL bill read as follows: It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for homicide as defined in § 22-16-1 or assault as defined in § 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 that the defendant is a pregnant woman who used force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if: (1) Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she would be justified under § 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child; and (2) She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.

The original point of the bill was to make our state's self-defense laws consistent with other laws on our books regarding homicide - like our statutes which say killing a pregnant woman would be two murders. What if the intent of the killer was not to kill her, but only her child?? That is what this bill addresses. I signed on to this law in its original form because I know of an example where a boyfriend started kicking his girlfriend's stomach to kill their child and she defended herself and unborn child and he ended up dead. The girlfriend went to jail for murder because it was not his intent to kill her, only her child. So, our existing self-defense laws didn't apply. HB1171 was an attempt to include unborn children in our self-defense statutes.

I don't like the language in the amendment at all - and I hope in deferring it one day we will see better language tomorrow. I was not in the Judiciary Committee where and when HB-1171 was extensively amended (hoghoused) and therefore I can't speak to how it arrived in it's present form, or why. I was looking forward to hearing that all explained on the House floor as the langauge is nothing like what it was originally, and my name is still on it.

Again, this bill has nothing to do with abortions or abortion doctors and I'm disappointed the Argus followed the lead of the pro-abortion bloggers who stirred the pot on this bill. I see the Rapid City Journal gave a responsible headline that actually fit the bill… South Dakota House Considers Fetus Defense Bill - http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_17a634b0-3947-11e0-bae0-001cc4c03286.html

As to whether I'll vote on this tomorrow, it's too early to say for reasons I mentioned above. However, it would be unfortunate if the pro-aborts were successful in killing what was originally intended to be a good fetal defense bill.

Here is an example of what this bill was originally intended to address.  Sad stuff.

Now for some additional commentary from me that is related to this firestorm, but fully unrelated to HB-1171… Abortion is violent - a separate distinct living human being is dismembered without anesthesia - some studies show the unborn feel pain at 8 weeks.   Fifty-five million unborn children have been killed in America since 1973. Fifty-five million. And, eight abortion doctors have been killed and there were 13 other attempts.  I denounce every one. Yet here again we have a grand diversion off the violence of abortion and the plight of the unborn.

When you get a moment, Google "murder victims by occupation" and you'll see police officers, judges, bankers, journalists, and missionaries at the top of the list. Abortionists have a pretty safe profession considering.  Yet, they are the only ones in South Dakota who are afforded the full protection of the law while they go about their work of dismembering South Dakota children without anesthesia.

During the legislative session, I've been using this venue to share the rationale behind my bills and my votes. I welcome discussion and feedback.

In our House Transportation Committee meeting on Thursday, I voted for HB-1192 which will substantially raise vehicle registration fees in South Dakota. The vote was 11-1. My vote may come as a surprise to some who know me as a card carrying member of the don't raise taxes club. But user fees are not the same as taxes. The Governor has said he will veto tax increases but I suspect he'd sign on to this fee increase, as did I. But I don't know for sure.

Here's a look at road conditions in South Dakota (slides courtesy the Dept of Transportation)…

The next little slide shows it takes three times the amount of money to turn a fair condition road back into excellent condition as it takes to keep a excellent road in excellent condition. In other words, the longer we wait to fix the roads, the more money it will take.

Roads are not an item in the general budget and so all the emails I'm getting that connect education and medicaid cuts with road cuts are apples and oranges. Main road funding sources are gas taxes, vehicle excise taxes, wheel taxes and vehicle registration fees. Vehicles get better gas mileage and so revenues from taxing gas are down. Road repair and construction costs go up and up every year. Gravel costs in the last five years have gone up from $8 to $12 per yard. THE LAST TIME WE RAISED GAS TAXES WAS 12 YEARS AGO (1999). Even so, I would have voted no on increasing the gas tax.

Vehicle registration fees in South Dakota are ridiculously low. I'll just give just one example but it's the same story for every vehicle model. Right now, a 2006 Buick Lacerne license fee in SD is $44. Our neighbors to the south in Nebraska pay $362.50 for that same vehicle. Just over the state line to the east they pay $242. In Iowa, it's $270. In Wyoming it's $243. In Montana it's $304.77. But again, here in South Dakota it's only $44. Even North Dakota is double that… $93.

HB-1192 raises the fee for a non-commerical car or truck 2001-4000 pounds from $41 to $51 dollars effective July 1, 2011.  On July 1, 2013 it increases the fee to $60.  Commercial vehicle fees do not change under HB-1192. This fee increase raises an additional $18.1 million in 2011 for roads (67% goes to counties, 16% goes to cities, 17% goes to townships). In 2013, the total increase to these local governments is $31 million per year. HB-1192 also changes the 30% older vehicle discount to vehicles 10 years or older. At present, the older vehicle discount applies to vehicles five years or older. Here's a look at a vehicle in the year the 30% reduction for five year old vehicles passed. A five year old vehicle today is NOT old. Heck, the way I buy cars, a five year old car IS a NEW car.

Roads are the lifeblood to our state's two biggest revenue generators - agriculture and tourism. The bottom line is we've only had one increase in revenue for roads in twenty years but our road construction costs have increased every year these last twenty years. I've been privy to numerous briefings from the Department of Transportation and Township and Municipalities, etc, etc and I've reviewed the findings from the summer study last year and the DOT and the legislature HAVE done their job to find efficiencies and cut costs. The DOT is lean today - ten years ago they went from 1300+ FTEs to 950+ and have about 1000 today. However, there are no other avenues to deal with this problem considering how roads are funded EXCEPT raise fees or taxes.

Before I show some pics of the problem I will say that right now only 43 of the 66 counties in South Dakota have a wheel tax. And that means Minnehaha/Lincoln County residents (Sioux Falls) are paying for roads in Pennington County (Rapid City) as Pennington County doesn't have a wheel tax. This needs to change real soon. If you live in the following counties, you are NOT doing your part and we in the other counties are are bearing the greater burden… Pennington, Lawrence, Bon Homme, Buffalo, Campbell, Clark, Clay, Corson, Dewey, Edmunds, Fall River, Hand, Hanson, Harding, Hyde, Jackson, Jones, Kingsbury, McPherson, Meade, Potter, Shannon, and Todd.  Again, those are the 23 non-wheel tax counties. The remaining 43 counties have a wheel tax.

The following pictures illustrate why the time to substantially raise vehicle registration fees is right now.

Here is a black top road that has gone back to dirt. (pics courtesy of the Beadle County Highway Department and the South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program.)

 

In South Dakota transportation circles, we are talking about de-paving roads. De-paving. We are talking about only mowing 8 feet of ditch instead of 16 feet. We are talking about reducing winter maintenance by sending crews out at 7am instead of at 5am and pulling them off the road earlier at night. That will affect you getting to work in the morning. The choice is really between less services and dangerous roads or paying more in fees or taxes.

A typical county has 64 miles of roads but can only pay for 2 miles of gravel road upkeep a year. That means only once in 30 years. Counties can only replace one bridge a year. A typical county has 140 bridges, 75% are past their preferred lifetime. There are 3200 statewide. That means, at present funding levels, some bridges will not get attention in this century.  Here are a few bridge pictures from our fine state. These are in Beadle County.

Note the date on this rusty bridge pic is 2002. This bridge has since been closed and still has not been repaired. When these bridges were built, they were built to hold the biggest tractors being made at that time. Here's a pic of one of those tractors.  Today the equipment going over these bridges dwarfs the vehicles of fifty years ago. And this is the result…

…both these bridge failures were in Brown County…

In north and northeast South Dakota flooding has damaged roads in numerous counties. FEMA money was insuffient to rebuilt these roads.  More flooding is on the way this year.

Many of these roads are impassible today.

I'll wrap up here by telling something that happened in east central South Dakota last October. A semi-full of grain pulled out of a field and went over an old bridge on the northwest side of Lake Byron. The bridge failed, it bowed, and the car behind it barely made it across (see the pic at the link above). Coming the other way was a school bus full of kids and the driver of the car stopped the bus to point out the failing bridge. The bridge fell when a Beadle County road worker walked across it.

I'd rather answer today to a few frustrated conservatives about why I voted yes to raise vehicle registration fees than I would explain a no vote the day after a bus load of school kids tipped on it's side into a river due to a failed bridge.

FYI- a similar vehicle registration fee raise passed the House in 2009 but failed in the Senate. This year the vehicle registration fee increase is back in the form of HB 1211 and again, it passed the Transportation Committee on Thursday 11-2. It was amended so it won't hit the House floor until Tuesday. I'm hopeful it'll pass there and get through the Senate as well.

Today I managed to profoundly offend our state's payday and title loan shop owners. It was brought to my attention that they have feelings too and so I offer my sincere apologies. I'm referring to my statements in the House Commerce Committee this morning which were as follows:

Those who profit from predatory lending would like us to believe, and no doubt they have themselves convinced, that they are financial angels who are a God-send. However, the stories of the people they “help” are everywhere to be told and in those testimonies, these lenders more resemble vultures than angels as they circle those who struggle to get by. I would suggest however that those of you on this committee have the opportunity to be the true angels here and I encourage you to vote yes on HB-1223.

It was very apparent that my designation - vultures - upset these lenders. In any case, as I sought to indicate in the title of this post, both my payday and title loan bills failed in committee today.

Too bad South Dakota Dollar Loan King Pin Charles Brennan was not able to come testify. Dan Henderson, Rapid City president of Money Central, Inc. (owns 14 payday loan shops in SD) and founder of SD's Short-term Loan Association told the committee the bad economy is also hurting the dollar loan shops as people are tightening their belts and not borrowing as much right now. Henderson was countering my point that economic woes spell opportunity for expansion and exploitation for those in the flourishing poverty industry.  The KELO article on Brennan (linked above) backs up my point: "Just last year he talked about how his payday loan business was booming because people were having trouble getting loans from the banks."

Because I am going to make an effort to communicate here some of the rationale behind my bills and votes, I'll paste here my opening comments on HB-1224 which would have set a 36% annual interest rate cap on short term lenders in South Dakota.

---

Thank you Mr. Chair and members of this committee. Again, I’m Rep. Steve Hickey from District 9 and the prime sponsor of HB-1224. This bill, HB-1224, has one objective:  It is an act to provide a 36% maximum finance charge for short-term loans. Obviously much of the testimony we presented for HB-1223 could be repeated here. I won’t repeat myself however I do want to share some pertinent history before I briefly address the rationale behind this proposed 36% maximum annual percentage rate cap.

As you know, in SD, when it comes to interest rates…. anything goes – 400%, 500%, 5000%.  It wasn’t always this way in our state. Our usury laws were changed in 1980. In 2004 PBS interviewed Governor Janklow who now has mixed feelings about repealing our state usury laws to entice Citibank jobs.

It was 1980, South Dakota's economy was a mess. Janklow said: "We were in the poor house. To me, this wasn't a credit card deal, it was a jobs deal. It was an economic opportunity for the state.” Citibank called saying “if we would change our law to invite them to come to South Dakota… they would guarantee South Dakota 400 Citibank jobs. A guarantee was 400 jobs. People throw around other numbers, but it was 400. He was clear, the intent was 400 jobs not 400% interest.

With bipartisan support and backing from South Dakota's banking association, Janklow proposed a special "emergency" bill. "Citibank actually drafted the legislation," he said. "Literally we introduced it, and it passed our legislature in one day.”  Looking back, Janklow said:

“Well, I can't make the guilt trip too big. I'll accept my responsibility as one of the performers, OK? I didn't think of any of this when it happened, and I still like what we did, and I still think it was a huge opportunity for my state… Now, all the human side of it aside, if we're talking about the industry and 18, 19, 20-plus percent interest, do I think that's a healthy thing for human beings? The answer is no, I don't think that's healthy at all. And to the extent I played a role in that, I understand that.”

If there was ever a case of unintended consequences this is that. So if 18%, 19% and 20% interest is unhealthy, why do we in the bill seek to cap it at 36%?

In 2007, the US Dept of Defense did something about the fact that payday lenders were targeting military bases - they deemed predatory lending a threat to national defense and national security.  The Defense Department and military officers cited concerns that payday lending ruined low-paid enlisted men and women's finances, jeopardized their security clearances, and even interfered with deployment schedules to Iraq.  President Bush signed into law and act of Congress stating that Payday loans to service members are limited to 36% annual interest.

Mr. Chair and honorable members of this committee, if anything greater than 36% is deemed destructive to military families and there was justification to set up protections for our service men and women, it most certainly is destructive to South Dakota’s working poor and consumer protections are long overdue.

Why 36%?  It has been deemed that 36% is the number that springs the debt trap. Anything more and people can’t get free.

A 36% cap costs taxpayers nothing, but a 36% cap protects worker earnings and benefits. States that enforce two-digit interest rate caps save their citizens nearly $2 billion per year collectively. It protects the earnings and government benefits of American households, thereby allowing these families to save, spend, and recover from their financial shortfalls in the long term. I’ll conclude with that and ask for your favorable support of HB-1224. I’ll stand by for questions.

---

You can hear my introduction to the earlier Payday lending bill (HB-1223) here, the other proponent and opponent testimony is there as well.

Yesterday (and in committee last week) I voted no on the mid-wifery bill, HB-1061.  (The vote was 36-31 but it failed as it included a fee that required a two-thirds majority, or 47 votes to pass. I don't think it's done however as a motion for intent to reconsider was made. That means they'll probably amend it, lobby us hard and we'll vote again today.) Here is the rationale behind my vote which was originally posted on Facebook…

The liability issue is a major issue and to the majority of us here it is still not resolved - there remains no recourse for a mom, dad or relative if a midwife botches something - yes I was in committee when they added a liability amendment to protect hospitals but it remains that malpractice insurance is not there to cover the midwife. We were told by lawyers the informed consent is not a sufficient waver in regards to the the liability issue.

 

Second, the level of training remains an issue for me.

 

I'll state my real issue this way: I find it compelling when proponents make the point that a woman has a right to have a baby anywhere/anyhow she wants. Yet, I'm sure you'll agree a mother does not have a right to unnecessarily terminate the life of her unborn child. And for me, I would say it follows that she doesn't have a right to risk or jeopardize that life unnecessarily. I've done funerals for newborns - lots of hurt and second guessing as to what could have been different. My friend who delivers baby's every week tells moms who want him to "back up a home birth"…

 

No I won't come and try to resuscitate your dead baby at 2 am. But I will give you a home birth in the hospital - you can have the room to yourself, invite whomever you want to help, and if you need help I'll be down the hall. Life is too fragile and precious to jeopardize it just so you can have a wonderful home birth experience.

 

On the floor today we heard a proponent of HB1061 compare having a baby at home to skydiving in terms how some people are more comfortable with risk than others. Hello? It's one thing for us as individuals to do risky things. But to risk the well-being of an unborn child? It's one thing for a mom to jeopardize her own well-being, it's my belief that she doesn't have a right to put a child a risk unnecessarily.

 

I spent ten times more time deliberating this issue than any other issue up here. I have been very vocal about how much I wanted to vote for it- issues of affordability and access are going to be even more critical in the days ahead and certified NURSE midwives are an important step in the right direction (as opposed to what this bill was about - certified professional midwives). Initially when I went to hear Dr. T and see the movie early last fall I was in favor of CPMs. Since that time, I obviously changed my mind but only after talking to people who deliver babies all the time tell me story after story about women who have 2 normal births, yet with the third there were no warning signs and the baby comes out blue, has to intubated but was hypoxic long enough to destine the kid to a life with cerebral palsy. All for what? It's my view that parents ought not roll the dice with it comes to the lives of their kids, if it's unnecessary.

 

I'm leaning on two things in every vote I cast here - my principles and a sense of peace. I'm praying about votes and I prayed more about this vote than any other to date. I had no peace on a yes vote here. And, my vote was based on the principle that children need every chance to come out of the womb safely. 

Representative Steve Hickey on HB1152 / transcript —

 

Mr. Speaker and honorable members of this House.

 

I rise today as one who has spent 24 years in a people-helping profession, serving the poor and being on the frontlines of compassion.  It has been my fortune to be able to give, perhaps into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to countless people in need – I’m talking weekly – people who come with legitimate needs for assistance: rent money, money for car repairs, gas, groceries, medicine, diapers and daycare.

 

Those who have the fortune of dispensing benevolence dollars have policies and procedures in place to make sure we aren’t giving money that people will turn right around and use to buy cigarettes, booze, or worse. In my case, we know this is money from an offering plate, often it’s the widow’s mite… and so for us it’s really a sacred obligation that we are careful that every penny goes to meet real needs.

 

But should it be any different for those of us here entrusted to steward the people’s money?  It’s remarkable actually, considering our state budget problems and our accountability to the taxpayers, that that same diligence isn’t given when our state gives handouts.

 

The Dept of Social Services is to be commended for the fine job and the tough job they do and I know they are opposing on the grounds that “it’s not their role” but it absolutely is their role to make sure tax dollars they steward aren’t used to perpetuate substance abuse and ensure that those dollars actually go where they are intended to go? If it’s not their role, whose role is it to make sure tax dollars are only given to legitimate needs? It’s ultimately our role as legislators to pass tax-dollar safeguards like this into law. We heard in committee last week there are no perimeters given to TANF recipients about what that money can be used for – we also heard testimony from apartment owners and business leaders right here in Pierre who testify that recipients of state funds areusing those funds to buy drugs.

 

This is outrageous to the average taxpayer. I hear great frustration back in my district, things like… are you kidding me?… if they have money for drugs,  obviously they don’t need state dollars. Those who deal each day with substance abuse know how <span>enabling</span> effectually delays any recovery. We know that substance abusers who hit bottom sooner than later are better off. This bill is a good faith effort demonstrating to the taxpayers of this state that we aren’t enabling and perpetuating, and exaserbating.

 

Initially, I was opposing this bill only for the reason that in it’s earlier version there was no language about the options for treatment and without that, innocent family members and children would have been negatively affected. However, that is no longer an issue as here in the amended version we have the stipulation that “the person shall be referred for appropriate professional or agency assistance.” That means the rest of the family will be taken into consideration and be on the state’s radar.

 

At present, kids with parents on drugs are in greater jeopardy. We heard in committee from a man who owns one hundred apartment units here in Pierre – he reports that on numerous occasions he’ll go to the door of one of his apartment’s mid-morning for maintenance and kids, whoshould be in school, answer the doors because their parent is passed out in bed. At present, DSS says the system in place is that people who suspect abuse should just call law enforcement.  Isn’t that far more harsh than what we are talking about here? Drug testing identifies the problem and gets people to help.

 

Several government and private industry studies demonstrate that each drug user in the workplace costs an employer on average $7,000-$13,000 annually.  How much more are drug users costing our state support systems?

 

A man in my district owns a sheet metal business and he told me he resents all the talk of unemployment right now because he and a number of business owners he knows <span>have jobs</span> but they can’t find drug-free workers. He told me never again, he refuses to hire a meth problem. These are workers he says who have no incentive to clean up because they know when they get fired or denied employment; the state will keep feeding their addiction and enabling them to use.

 

I represent him here and those like him who point out drug tests aren’t unreasonable… submitting to one today is across-the-board-standard in seeking just about any employment.  It’s not demeaning or demoralizing or embarrassing; it’s standard even for pilots.

 

At his inauguration last month Governor Daugaard said…

 

In South Dakota, we help our neighbor who stumbles. The many who earn their way come to the aid of the few who need a helping hand. ((Everyone needs a hand up now and then, but… )) we must never carry the man who lies down.

 

In my estimation, this is a compassionate bill, yet a tough-love type bill. One of the ways we help people is to show tough love. It doesn’t help them or their families to let this go on unchecked. For these reasons I encourage each of you to push the green button here on HB1152.

 

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

 

NOTE: Bill failed 32-36 in the House, February 7, 2011.

We won! Thanks to the voters in District 9 and to everyone who supported me in a million different ways. It was a blast to get bombarded with texts and encouraging calls and emails from all over the state, nation and even a few from overseas - and a skype call from a soldier in Afghanistan. Incredible.  Thanks everyone.  My family is grateful. And to see Kristi Noem win makes last February worth it.

Here are the results:

I'm looking forward to representing District 9 in Pierre!!

However, right now I'm about to get on a plane for Athens where I will be training and teaching leadership to pastors and church leaders from all streams of the Christian faith.  Then I'm off to Moldova to help lay the groundwork for strategic rescue mission aimed at stopping what my friend describes here in his soon to be released documentary. The Sunday I return (11/21) I will have with me the young man who did this documentary and he will speak at Church at the Gate where, among other things, he'll report on what we just accomplished together in Moldova. 

Today I'll surely sleep on the plane… after all that was a whole lot of work to simply swap out one letter before my name…. Rev. to Rep. 

Editorial: Budding legislators ready to contribute

Fresh faces Deelstra, Hickey should join Peters, Krebs in Legislature

One the exciting aspects of campaign season is watching the emergence of strong newcomers who are destined to make solid contributions in South Dakota….

In the House, Bob Deelstra, another Hartford Republican, and Steve Hickey, a Sioux Falls Republican, lead the field of five newcomers. Though Deelstra's inexperience shows his need to learn more about the legislative process, he succeeds in bringing ideas to the table as a starting point. That roll-up-your-sleeves trait is critical for legislators, especially considering the tough choices they'll need to be making during the upcoming session.

Hickey also displays similar traits, along with a level-headedness in viewing the state's issues thoughtfully. He also provides specifics about his proposals for state government along with the ability to offer new ideas to consider.

As you would expect, I'm grateful, and thank the entire editorial board for their endorsement. I look forward to more good interaction with the Argus in the days ahead as we work to make our state even better. 

Ha! I can't whine about media bias now, can I?

On the ballot with me here in the District 9 House race is Charles Drews, a Constitution Party candidate.  There are only 21 registered Constitution Party voters here in District 9. Those of us on the Republican side of the ticket know these are votes are coming from our team, as these are not left of center voters. In a race like mine here in District 9 (where there are notably more registered Democrats than Republicans) this can make a difference in terms of electing people like me who are conservative candidates who stand firmly on our Founding documents.

Oddly, I've never met Charles but I figured I might as I participated in all the parades, candidate forums, etc, etc, in our district. Maybe I shook his hand on his doorstep, I really don't know. He's been off the radar at everything, no campaign signs, mail, literature, etc. And so I'll admit I wasn't surprised to see today he filed termination papers on October 14 which the Secretary of State's office.  I called his treasurer for more info and to ask if he would contact his supporters and encourage them to send their votes my way. I learned Charles is indeed out of the race because he has decided not to run. However, Secretary of State Chris Nelson tells me Charles Drews IS still a legitimate candidate and is already and will continue to appear on the ballot as technically he has only terminated the financial organization of his campaign.

The bottom line… potentially there will be conservative-minded District 9 voters who will in effect waste their vote on a candidate who is not running and therefore potentially help the Democrats continue to undermine Constitutional liberties. Bummer. I will make an effort to connect with the Constitution Party voters here in District 9 so that doesn't happen.