South Dakota will now subsidize a hundred lawmakers’ memberships to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative corporate front group, after a vote Tuesday by the Republican-controlled Legislature Executive Board. Lawmakers will also continue to receive perks like unlimited travel to out-of-state ALEC meetings.

Aberdeen News reports that these two-year memberships will cost $100 apiece, and so far since July 1, lawmakers took 25 trips at a cost of over $31,000. During South Dakota’s peak year of subsidized travel to ALEC events, 71 legislators took 171 trips for a cost of $200,000.

But South Dakota’s relationship with ALEC goes in both directions. Lawmakers in South Dakota and other states have been on the receiving end of over $4 million in “scholarships” to conferences, according to a Center for Media and Democracy report.

In return, ALEC’s imprint can be found in state law. South Dakota ranks among two dozen states that have some form of the so-called “Stand Your Ground” law, a policy pushed by ALEC’s now-defunct Public Safety and Elections task force, which authorizes the use of deadly force in the face of a perceived threat. The states with Stand Your Ground have seen, on average, an 8 percent increase in homicides without deterring robbery or assault.

In addition to gun violence, South Dakota has also passed ALEC-like resolutions to teach climate change denier arguments in schools, based on the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act.”

Across the country, ALEC’s corporate and polluter interests have become state law in the form of voter suppression efforts, lowering corporate tax rates, and enacting so-called “right to work” laws.

Iowa also subsidizes lawmakers’ ALEC membership, where lawmakers have advanced so-called “right to work” measures and “ag gag” bills that undermine food safety.

While states continue subsidize ALEC, schools, infrastructure spending, and social services have all faced budget cuts.

On Friday, South Dakota become the first state to enact legislation, in the aftermath of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, explicitly authorizing teachers and staff in K-12 schools to carry firearms. The measure “leaves it up to school districts to decide whether to allow armed teachers” and requires those who wish to carry guns to “undergo training similar to what law enforcement officers receive.”

Still, the approach, championed by the National Rifle Association as a means to protect students in mass shootings, was widely opposed by school administrators and teachers themselves, who said the legislature missed an opportunity to engage in a broader discussion about gun violence and prevention. The educators don’t expect too many districts to take advantage of the new option:

Educators interviewed earlier this week remained unconvinced the legislation is needed.

Don Kirkegaard, superintendent of the Meade School District, said he has never been in favor of the bill and would have preferred a summer study session on school safety.

“We should be looking at the big picture and that may be part of the big picture, but it’s not something I’m going to promote,” he said.

Kirkegaard said a study session would have allowed educators to explore everything from facility designs to fire safety, all of which play a key role in safety. Such a session would have brought together “all of the players” for a more comprehensive safety plan, he said.

“I just wish … everybody would have talked a little bit together before we started passing legislation,” he said. “I don’t believe there will be very many districts, at least to begin with, who are going to jump at putting sentinels in a school until they’ve done a lot of research.”

South Dakota is not alone in allowing teachers to bring guns into the classroom. Utah permits concealed carry in public schools and several school districts in Texas also allow firearms in the classroom. In the months following the Newtown tragedy, “legislatures in other states, including Georgia, New Hampshire and Kansas, are working on measures similar to South Dakota’s.”

Yesterday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the suicide advisory provision of South Dakota’s abortion law is constitutional, voting 7-4 to reverse a decision by a three-judge panel. The law requires doctors to tell patients seeking an abortion that there is a link between abortions and depression and other psychological distress including suicide.

The 8th Circuit decided that, despite the fact that the link between abortion and suicide is unproven and may not exist, the South Dakota law does not unduly burden abortion rights or violate the free speech rights of doctors:

The appeals court ruled on Tuesday that conclusive proof of a causation was not required and the suicide advisory was not misleading and was relevant to the patient’s decision.

“Today’s decision supports the Legislature’s goal of encouraging women seeking an abortion to make informed and voluntary decisions,” South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said in a statement.

But abortion rights supporters disagree. Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, called the ruling “the greatest intrusion by the government into the patient-doctor relationship to date.” Planned Parenthood is the only abortion provider in South Dakota:

“Every reputable researcher and medical organization has determined that there is no sound scientific evidence that shows a cause and effect relationship between abortion and suicide,” said Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of PPMNS, in a statement. “This law, upheld by the court today, is just one of many reprehensible barriers that South Dakota politicians are determined to impose on women seeking safe and legal health care.”

The four dissenting judges argued that the most reliable evidence presented shows that there is no causal relationship between abortion and suicide and determined that the suicide advisory violates patient’s due process rights and doctor’s free speech rights.

What will happen if the case is appealed and heard in the U.S. Supreme Court is an open question. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the court’s most recent abortion decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, relied on paternalistic reasoning to uphold a ban on partial-birth abortions. Kennedy fretted about the mental health risks of abortion, noting that “some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.” Kennedy’s decision resulted in a variety of state laws aimed at restricting or eliminating abortion rights in the guise of protecting women. In fact, abortion rights supporters are so wary of the risk of challenging unconstitutional abortion restrictions and losing at the Supreme Court that they have opted not to challenge many of them.

–Alex Brown

The South Dakota legislature recently passed a bill which would have allowed most people to carry a concealed firearm without first obtaining a permit. To his credit, the state’s Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed this bill on Friday:

[T]he more he studied House Bill 1248, the more the governor had doubts. And by Friday, he had seen enough to veto the bill.

“When I looked at the bill, it really was a solution in search of a problem,” Daugaard said Friday. “The process for gaining a concealed carry permit is very simple and easily accomplished. I just don’t see this (bill) as something that would improve that by a great deal.” . . .

But the bill’s supporters say Daugaard’s veto was misguided.

“I believe that concealed weapons permit is a restriction on your constitutional right,” said Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, who sponsored HB1248. “Whether or not it’s a legitimate restriction – that can be debated. But it is a restriction. If you don’t have a good, rock-solid restriction to leave that restriction in place, why not remove that restriction?”

Rhoden, of course, is wrong about the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects most individuals right to own a firearm, it also concluded that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It then suggested that a long list of gun regulations are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment, including “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R-SD)

Although this bill does not specifically call out any particular religion for ill treatment, it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court explained in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, “the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.”

While it is uncommon for American courts to apply religious law, it is not unheard of. Private parties sometimes enter into contracts where they agree to resolve their disputes under something other than U.S. law, and individuals sometimes write wills devising their property according to the tenets of their faith. Under the bill Daugaard signed, however, courts will be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under French law or ancient Roman law or under the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition rules, but they won’t be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under the requirements of someone’s religious beliefs. This is discrimination “against some or all religious beliefs,” and is therefore unconstitutional.

One of the taken children. Photo Credit: NPR

But an NPR investigation reveals that 32 states are “failing to abide by the act,” with the most egregious violations occurring in South Dakota. In this state, “Native American children make up only 15 percent of the child population, yet they make up more than half the children in foster care.” According to the investigation, “the state is removing 700 native children a year, sometimes in questionable circumstances,” claiming generic “neglect” when there isn’t any. State records reveal that “almost 90 percent of the kids in family foster care are in non-native homes or group care.”

Meanwhile, these questionable decisions to break up families create a massive inflow of federal money into the state:

Every time a state puts a child in foster care, the federal government sends money. Because South Dakota is poor, it receives even more money than other states – almost a hundred million dollars a year.[...]

Then there’s the bonus money. Take for example something the federal government calls the “adoption incentive bonus.” States receive money if they move kids out of foster care and into adoption — about $4,000 a child. But according to federal records, if the child has “special needs,” a state can get as much as $12,000.

A decade ago, South Dakota designated all Native American children “special needs,” which means Native American children who are permanently removed from their homes are worth more financially to the state than other children.

In 10 years, this adoption bonus program has brought South Dakota almost a million dollars.

As an example, the Children’s Home Society, the state’s largest foster care provider, has close ties to the state. As NPR notes, the foster home used to be run by state Gov. Dennis Daugard who “was on the group’s payroll while he was a lieutenant governor — and while the group received tens of millions of dollars in no-bid state contracts.” Meanwhile, tribal foster homes remain empty.

State officials insist that the money never played a part in the state’s decision to remove a child. “The state doesn’t financially benefit from kids being in care,” said one official. “The state is always paying some part of it.” But as state records show, the federal government reimbursed the state “for almost three quarters of the money it spent on foster care.”

Essentially, the state is removing children under nebulous circumstances and getting a huge pay out in return. As on tribal social worker put it, “they make a living off off our children.”