Last Friday I was cruising casually along at the Black Hills Forum and Press Club, “snapping” smart-phone photos as Rapid City economic-development pro Tom Johnson spoke about business recruitment.
Then we got to the question-and-answer session, and somebody asked Johnson about the transgender bill in Pierre — a tough question from which he did not try to hide.
And that was the end of cruising casually.
The transgender discussion is a difficult one. The issues are many and challenging. And especially for old guys like me, it’s an uncomfortable one.
I can’t speak for others, but I have lots to learn. Lots of questions to ask.
So the question on transgender impacts on business recruitment caught my attention. Someone wondered more broadly how much certain legislation in Pierre affects the efforts to recruit businesses to South Dakota.
One key example was HB 1057, which would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor for doctors and other listed medical professionals to perform gender reassignment surgery or administer or provide puberty blocking medications or certain levels of estrogen or testosterone as part of the process on children less than 16 years of age.
HB1057 passed the House State Affairs Committee on an 8-5 vote and awaits action on the House floor, likely today or tomorrow.
Johnson, the president and CEO of Elevate Rapid City, told those at the Press Club that HB1057 is bad for business — and especially for business recruitment. He said it’s pretty clear that if you want success in the business-recruitment business, you should not appear insensitive or discriminatory toward minority groups, including transgender people.
He said more than that at the time, but I was away from my notebook. And by the time I got back to the table where I’d left it, the conversation has moved on.
After the meeting, however, I gave Johnson a chance to dodge a follow-up discussion on the issue, and again he didn’t run and hide. He spoke.
“You talk to any major market where there’s a bunch of professional workers in technology and you will ask them this question and they will absolutely look at South Dakota as if it’s backward,” Johnson said. “So it inhibits our ability to recruit workers who are in those professions in the technology sector.”
Attempts to attract major sporting events also could be hurt, Johnson said.
“It inhibits our ability to recruit tournaments here, from the national organizations in that same light,” he said. “And it absolutely will affect our ability to get technology companies to come here. It’s just a fact. Technology companies right now value diversity, whether its race, gender, age, you name it. Diversity is critical to these companies.”
I did have to stop and wonder if technology companies really value diversity in age. Seriously, they’re out looking for 68-year-olds? But that’s another discussion.
Johnson said policies that appear to be restrictive or hostile toward diversity will be seen as negatives by companies that are being recruited.
“And that’s not a political position,” he said. “It’s just a factual position I have to take if I care about the future of Rapid City and South Dakota.”
Of course, supporters of 1057 argue that they care about the future of South Dakota, too. And they disagree on the potential economic impact of 1057. And it isn’t surprising that the prime sponsor of the bill, Republican state Rep. Fred Deutsch of Florence, wasn’t inclined to accept Johnson’s conclusions about harm to potential business recruitment.
“Show me the data,” Deutsch said in a Facebook message exchange. He said he has “been told both North Carolina and Georgia saw increased business activity after being threatened with boycotts due to the North Carolina ‘bathroom bill’ and the movie industry threats in Georgia over legislation seen as anti-LGBTQ. I am working on getting data to verify.”
I reached out to Deutsch on Facebook message a few days later, asking if he had that data. He eventually asked for my email address but hasn’t yet provided any information on economics tied to the controversies in other states.
Another supporter of the bill, Republican state Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown, noted that amendments to the bill from its original form reduced the age covered from 18 to 16. That should eliminate the possibility of college athletes being affected, Schoenbeck said. It should also eliminate any concern the NCAA would have about tournaments being hosted in South Dakota, he said.
“Up to 18 might have affected a freshman in college,” Schoenbeck said. “Now you’re talking about 15 or under. There would be no excuse for the NCAA to be condoning those type of procedures for kids. If they did somebody should speak up to them harshly.”
As for businesses, Schoenbeck said: “Are there businesses that won’t come to South Dakota because we don’t let you mutilate those little kids? If you laid out the issues, not the slogans, I think most people would say you have a problem from a business perspective if that’s part of your consideration.”
Opponents of the bill argue that what Schoenbeck calls “mutilation,” transgender people and their supporters consider medically necessary affirmation of their true gender. And the process doesn’t always involve surgery, especially for minors, or might involve surgery after years of preparation.
“Medical professionals, not politicians, should decide what medical care is in the best interest of a patient," Libby Skarin, policy director for the ACLU in South Dakota, said in a news release.
Proponents of 1057 have not shown evidence of gender reassignment surgeries on minors in South Dakota, Skarin said. She also says the NCAA question isn’t about whether the bill would affect a particular college athlete. Rather it’s about how the bill would create a climate of discrimination and hostility toward LGBTQ people, which businesses across the nation reject.
Which is exactly what Tom Johnson worries about.
“If we have restrictive policies on things like that, they’re just not going to look at us,” he said.
It’s a concern shared by economic development specialists in cities across the state, said David Owen, president of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
“There’s a significant number of people in the business community concerned about it. We’ve watched the North Carolina experience that adversely affected tournaments, conventions and top-level entertainers,” Owen said. “But also, I have multi-state international companies that support our organization and I’ve heard from two or three that said they are inclusive businesses and don’t want laws creating draconian rules or discriminating against a certain class of people.”
Gov. Kristi Noem has not said whether she will support or oppose the bill, but she has promoted caution in injecting government into family decisions. The bill is driven by a conservative portion of Noem’s Republican base — a portion that often opposes government intrusions in family life.
So Noem might find herself caught between an important GOP voting block and a proposed law by that same block that seems to contradict certain conservative principles.
Owen said part of Noem’s concern could also be economics. She focused on boosting business recruitment and economic development in her State of the State address earlier this month.
“It’s my conjecture that by Noem expressing concerns, she’s giving credence to the economic argument,” Owen said. “And we need to sort that out.”
The sorting will intensify as debate continues on HB1057, which is likely to pass out of the House today or tomorrow.
If it does, the fight will shift to the Senate side, where opponents of 1057 think they have a better chance to defeat the bill.
