From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Andre Van Mol
8/17/2019 3:02:31 PM
"Shupe Jamie" <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com>
"VBroyles" <vbroyles@childparentrights.org>, "Jon Uhler" <jkuvpc@yahoo.com>, "Lee Schoenbeck" <lee@schoenbecklaw.com>,
"Laidlaw Michael" <mike@drlaidlaw.com>, "Jon Hansen" <hansen.jonathon@gmail.com>, "William Malone"
<malone.will@gmail.com>, "Mary McAlister" <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>, "Mast Richard" <RMast@lc.org>, "Heyer
Walt" <waltsbook@yahoo.com>, "Sharp Matt" <msharp@adflegal.org>, "Chris Motz" <cmotz@sdcatholicconference.org>,
"Katherine Cave" <kelseycoalition@gmail.com>, "Cretella Michelle" <drmcretella@gmail.com>,
"michael.biggs@sociology.ox.ac.uk" <michael.biggs@sociology.ox.ac.uk>, "pamosa27@comcast.net" <pamosa27@comcast.net>,
"Deutsch Fred" <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov>

Subject: Re: update

Jamie,
Despite the fact that it has been through a bank of constitutional attorneys multiple time, the phrase has caused me
hesitation from the start and still does.
We cannot say biological sex, as that fuels the other side to say, “see, they know there are other sexes.â€​
Maybe:
“attempting to change the child’s acceptance of their natal sex or to affirm the child’s perception if other
than their natal sexâ€​
But then it’s sort of a mess.
Andre

On Aug 17, 2019, at 3:50 PM, James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe) <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rep Deutsch,
This bill is now nice and streamlined, but I feel this line is particularly worrisome and open to potential abuse: “attempting to change or affirm the child’s perception of
their sex"
I really think you need to add the word "biological" or even "biological birth sex" to this. Otherwise, they're going to possibly twist this around and claim the child's distorted
perception is the correct one. After all, sex is used in lieu of gender these days on many government documents and nearly all current lawsuits state gender identity is the
determining factor of a person's sex.
Is this just me, or is anyone else seeing this potential problem too?
Thanks!
James Shupe

On Saturday, August 17, 2019, 06:25:33 PM EDT, Fred Deutsch <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov> wrote:

All, just a note to update you on status of the Vulnerable Child Protection Act.

I’m comfortable the bill and white paper are at or near final form.

I’ve begun my road trips across the state to meet with key moderate Republicans. Response has been mixed but mostly positive. Not a single legislator I’ve spoken with so far has a clue about
what’s happening with transgender advocacy nor affirmative therapy. All of this is new to them.

Despite the generally positive response, I have no doubt this will be an uphill battle when we get to session. The last time I introduced a transgender-related bill in 2016, the state and the governor experienced
political and economic pressures including boycott threats from around the country. I doubt this time will be any different.

I meet with the governor’s top policy advisor next week to discuss the bill.

I’ve targeted about 20% of the legislature to meet one-on-one prior to session.

KC from Kelsey Coalition will be developing her suggested strategy for testimony that I’ll bounce off our South Dakota team.

As always, please do not share this with media. The longer we can fly under the radar, the better.

Please let me know if you have questions. I am grateful for your support and prayers.

Fred