From: Sent: To: Cc: Pamosa27 8/20/2019 11:35:17 AM "VBroyles" <vbroyles@childparentrights.org> "Fred Deutsch" <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov>, "Andre Van Mol" <95andrev@gmail.com>, "Jon Uhler" <jkuvpc@yahoo.com>, "Lee Schoenbeck" <lee@schoenbecklaw.com>, "Michael Laidlaw" <mike@drlaidlaw.com>, "Jon Hansen" <hansen.jonathon@gmail.com>, "William Malone" <malone.will@gmail.com>, "Mary McAlister" <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>, "Richard Mast" <RMast@lc.org>, "Walt Heyer" <waltsbook@yahoo.com>, "Matt Sharp" <msharp@adflegal.org>, "James Shupe" <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com>, "Chris Motz" <cmotz@sdcatholicconference.org>, "Katherine Cave" <kelseycoalition@gmail.com>, "Michelle Cretella" <drmcretella@gmail.com>, "michael.biggs@sociology.ox.ac.uk" <michael.biggs@sociology.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: update Attachments: PastedGraphic-5.png Fred and all, I agree with Vernadette on the definition of a child. If the age is to be defined at 15 and younger, then what about those under the age of majority that are excluded? Vernadette is absolutely correct that this population is just as vulnerable, albeit on a different level. They are still minors and to “negotiate†an age is to compromise...which leaves older teens without a voice to speak for them. And, what about the parents and their rights of these older teens who may not be aware of “therapies†that the teen is seeking out in private? I am witnessing firsthand an alarming increase in the rate of teens (in this age range) with suicidal attempts and drug overdoses in the PICU. We will be leaving them to the wolves if the age for this bill is not raised to the age of majority. Monique On Aug 19, 2019, at 2:01 PM, VBroyles <vbroyles@childparentrights.org> wrote: Fred I’ve read the much streamlined version and I have significant concerns about adding a definition for “child†at the outset that means 15 or younger. First, the other side has worked hard to lower the protections society provides to children in multiple arenas by creating the perception that pre-adults who are 16 and 17 are no longer “children†(i.e., abortion, sexual consent, contraceptions, consent to gender treatments). Yet, all of us know this is dangerously untrue — this is often the timeframe when children need the most protection and guidance from parents and adults because of what is being thrown at them. At minimum, I do not believe we should open with a definition of “child†that directly plays into the oppositions long-game. If indeed you want to keep this age cut off, then you can simply specify “a child age fifteen or younger†on line 25. Second, it would be very helpful for us to understand why the arbitrary cut off at age 16, rather than the long-standing age of majority of 18 (which is still too young developmentally to make such decisions, but the law leaves us no choice). Is there some other analogous situation in SD law that makes 16 a logical cut off? What specific concerns (other than this bill is going to be hard to pass) or explanations for this cut off age are you hearing? It’s important to understand this. Because I fear you are now running into two different risks — that by having negotiating against your best judgment from the outset, you give yourself nothing to negotiate away during the legislative process. And, that by so watering down the bill, it may fail to elicit the support and excitement of the stakeholders you need to have standing beside you to pass this bill. I talked briefly with the Ex Dir of the Family Heritage Alliance and he asked whether this bill will be worth coming out for the fight. I said “yes†to the earlier version. I feel less confidence he and others will agree if you start by giving away 16 and 17-year olds right from the outset, as opposed to at least holding that in the pocket. Vernadette Vernadette Broyles, Esq. President and General Counsel Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc. 5805 State Bridge Rd, Suite G310 Johns Creek GA 30097 Phone: 770-448-4525 vbroyles@childparentrights.org On Aug 17, 2019, at 6:25 PM, 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 <Vulnerable Child Protection Act- August 11 draft.pdf> Attachment: