From:
"James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe)"

Sent:
8/13/2019 7:49:47 PM

To:
"Fred Deutsch" <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov>

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: Re: South Dakota legislation (Returning Notes With My Thoughts On Suggested Changes)
Thanks, Fred, I'll take a look and get back with you soon.
On the size thing, I was only referring to their synopsis versus your summary. Not the lengthy interior part that's 34 pages.
So I wasn't clear about the white paper not being part of the bill.
Blessings,
James

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019, 05:47:42 PM EDT, Fred Deutsch <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov> wrote:

James, thank you for taking the time, not just to review the materials, but to think deeply and critically about them.

All of you comments need feedback and dialog.

Let me start by saying I reviewed the Illinois bill and spoke with its sponsor Rep. Tom Morrison. The Illinois bill is 34 pages long. Ours is 2 pages! I think we are getting it down to a very concise bill.

The white paper is not the bill, but is only information I am providing legislators during my educational coffee tours to meet with them this summer and fall.

The most recent version of the bill is attached. Some of the most significant changes on page 1:

Line 8 – we define child as age 15 and under. Purely political calculation. If we use age 18, the bill will likely die a quick death.

Line 18 – defined sex. The next version will change “sex organs” to “natal sex organs.” We eliminated sexual identity.

Line 23 – we substantially narrowed the bill, changing it from “any person” to any mental healthcare provider or any doctor (actually, a list of licensed providers).

Line 26 – changed the focus of the bill to “attempting to change or affirm the child’s perception of their sex . . .”

On page 2, I understand your comments about using the word “supraphysiologic,” but I think it is okay since it refers to doses that induce infertility.

Please provide me your feedback about the above in relation to the attached bill. Thanks for your help! - Fred