How to keep the 2nd Amendment intact, culture wars and a Canaries thank you: Your letters
Argus Leader letters to the editor for Feb. 19:
Sioux Falls Canaries helped save Webster youth baseball, softball
With our community in need of a new tee-ball field, I contacted the Sioux Falls Canaries to see if theysupported youth baseball and softball programs.
That phone call changed our project and program for many years ahead. The staff was great to work with and they got the new owner, Brian Slipka, involved right away. The new ownership of the Canaries, True North Sports, was absolutely amazing to work with as they were very excited about our plans.
Brian truly cares for the communities which the Canaries draw from and especially the youth in those towns. The Canaries were the first group to donate to theproject and really got the ball rolling. The Canaries Community Fund, in which Brian established, will do amazing things for the youth not only in Sioux Falls but the whole state of South Dakota.
Our tee-ball field will be completed this spring and the youth in the Webster area will have a new field for manyyears to come. It has been an honor to get to know Brian who supports the youth and makes a difference each and every day to so many kids. The youth of Webster can’t thank them enough for their generous donation toward our project. I hope they keep up the great work in the communities, because they are truly Hall of Famers for their love of the game of baseball and our youth!With many thanks!− Chad Hesla, Webster Baseball Director, Webster
Consider these 3 steps when developing gun laws
I grew up near a small town in South Dakota and still live in this great state. I learned at a very young age how to handle and respect firearms. When I was in high school, many of us took guns to school, so we could hunt on the way home. The thought never even crossed our minds to use those guns for any other purpose. I was required to take a gun safety course in order to obtain a hunting license. This course reenforced the training I received from my family growing up. We learned how to safely own, use, respect and store firearms.I currently own many guns. I have always been a believer in our right to own firearms and support the Second Amendment. As a citizen gun owner and a supporter of gun rights, I am begging you to pass some common sense restrictions on firearms so we can move toward preventing any future and needless shooting of innocent people.The efforts put forth by Congress so far have done nothing to make change. It may be time to try taking a different approach. I would like you to consider the three following steps. None of these actions infringe on the right to own, buy and use firearms. The Second Amendment would remain intact.1. Pass a law requiring a federal license to own, carry and store any firearm of any type. In order to obtain this license, citizens would need to prove they know how to safely own, use, and store firearms. This would require all current and future gun owners to take and pass a federal gun safety course. Of course there would need to be an implementation period. There could also be an advanced level which would allow national concealed carry permits.2. Pass a law making it illegal for any civilian to own a gun with a magazine capacity over 5-10 rounds. I am in favor of a five-round limit. I can see no possible reason or need to have more rounds in any civilian gun. When finally enacted, this law would need severe punishment if not complied with. This would need to be done over a period of time and the government would need to provide funding to "buy back" high capacity magazines in exchange for qualified magazines. There may also need to be some subsiding of gun manufacturers to design and manufacture the lower capacity magazines. This law would, after a grace period, make it illegal to own a gun or magazine with a higher capacity than required and, again, punishment would need to be sufficiently severe.3. Pass a law requiring ALL gun sales to be done using a federally licensed gun dealer. This would end person to person gun sales which occur all of the time both in and out of gun shows. People would simply be required to pay a nominal fee to any federally licensed dealer to broker the deal. Since federal firearms licenses are controlled by the government, the government could set the fee to conduct the transaction (similar to notary services). This would not end gun shows! The only change would be that the interested parties would need to do the transaction using a federally licensed dealer. There would be a nominal extra cost but this would ensure a background check being performed for each and every gun sale. Again, punishment for not following this law would need to be substantial in order to ensure compliance.I believe these three measures would make substantial progress to reduce the incidence of both violent and accidental shooting of our innocent citizens. None of these measures infringe on the Second Amendment right to own, and carry a firearm in any way. They only place reasonable restrictions on doing so. We have been living with "gun control" since the 1930s. You and I cannot own a machine gun. We cannot own explosives without a permit. These proposed laws do not ban any type or style of gun. It is said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. It is time to try a different solution in order to make change actually happen and get a desired result.The gun lobby can talk all they want about supporting Second Amendment rights but in my view, the right for our citizens to be able to live without fear of being gunned down overrules it. Our current threat level infringes our collective right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
− Robert Funk, Brandon
More:Conlon: We're relaunching 'Perspectives' under a new name, with new views
This bill about eye surgery is worth watching in Pierre
South Dakota is considering SB 87 authorizing optometrists to do eye surgery with lasers and scalpels with no requirement for training on live human patients.
Proponents characterize those surgeries as merely “office procedures.” Make no mistake, they are surgeries. The scalpel ones are obvious; however, the laser ones modify or potentially destroy living tissue inside the eye by using either heat or a “shock wave” powerful enough to cause a sight-threatening retinal detachment in susceptible eyes. Furthermore, the location at which a surgery can be done has nothing to do with its safety.
Proponents also insist optometrists should “practice to the full extent of their training.” With rare exception, that training for these surgeries only involves “treatments” done on plastic models.The same applies to the proposed national examination that can convey certification for all authorized surgeries.
Why would anyone want to do eye surgery without the four years of medical school and four or more years of additional supervised surgical training ophthalmologists – medical doctors who do eye surgery -- undertake? I truly have no answer. Living eyes and eyelids actually blink and move, increasing the odds of causing unpredictable damage.
Furthermore, human tissue responds differently to laser or a scalpel in different patients. Overtreatment with a laser can “cook” the involved structures, rendering them non-functional and worsening disease. Undertreatment may have no effect, wasting the healthcare dollars of our patients.
It is true that sight-threatening complications can happen to anyone, including ophthalmologists. It’s just that training on the order of years rather than hours far better prepares someone to avoid and manage complications that will happen. Furthermore, rural patients who might gain “improved access” seem far better off having surgery done by someone with substantial experience utilized regularly enough to remain skilled rather than by an undertrained “surgeon.”
A similar bill in California that had at least some requirement for live human training failed because even that training was deemed inadequate, a feeling strongly shared by ophthalmology educators. Ironically, were South Dakota to enact this bill, it would be permitting something even more aggressive than “deep blue” California was willing to allow.
Our Legislature should reject this proposal as it is simply not in the interest of patient safety for South Dakotans.
− Dr. Ryan L. Geraets, President of the South Dakota Academy of Ophthalmology, Sioux Falls
Culture wars are playing out in South Dakota, too
I am in wholehearted agreement with opinions expressed in last Sunday’s “Letters” related to South Dakota’s Republican-led legislature.
What’s happening in our state mirrors what’s happening nationally.
“We are under attack in a left-wing culture war,” as Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas stated in her response to President Biden’s State of the Union address.
So Republicans are mounting a “culture war” counter offensive of their own. What else could account for the party of limited government, low taxes and aversion to a government takeover of health care, being fixated on controlling the population in the most private and intimate of spaces – that between persons and their health care providers (think reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights).
Republicans, for sure, have their own versions of culture war and cancel culture. And when you factor in subtle but no less insidious voter suppression activities like HB 1200 (related to putting Constitutional amendments on the ballot), here’s what’s clear to me: These are efforts to impose the will of a diminishing but dominant subset on the rest of South Dakotans.
− Bill Kubat, Sioux Falls
Argus Leader's new column cohort too leftist
The new "Speaking truth to power" board is extremely biased. The members of the panel include those who promote immigration, gay/trans issues, race issues and the standard litany of left-wing views of the issues of today.As to "speaking truth to power," a left-wing panel HOLDS the power. In today's popular culture, the power is held on the left. Voices which challenge the left's relentless focus on "trans" persons, illegal immigrants, "white supremacy culture" and other issues are shouted down, cancelled and otherwise excluded from the public space of discussion.Take the issue of "gender-affirming care." While we hear nothing except "South Dakota is killing trans kids" with the new bar (HB1080) on certain types of care, in the wider world "gender-affirming care" is coming under a very critical view. In the UK, the recent Cass report about the Tavistock Gender Clinic was scathing in its view of the shoddiness of the medical treatment of thousands of vulnerable children. Multiple foreign countries are banning "gender-affirming care." Last Monday, a whistleblower at Washington University School of Medicine alleged shoddy and negligent care for these vulnerable and deluded children. Will the Argus Leader take a wide view and report these developments, or will the focus be simply on the "need" for "gender-affirming care"?Take the issue of "illegal immigrants." We are living in an unprecedented era of deliberate failure by the Biden Administration to enforce the laws of the US regarding immigration. Your paper spends little time on the costs to the US of this tidal wave of illegal immigrants. Schools must pay money for ESL services, hospitals must provide free care, housing must be found. The millions of new illegal immigrants impose real costs on the US. Your panel will promote the "need" for more illegal immigrants, more refugees, without listening to the millions of US residents, and majority of South Dakota residents, who do not agree on this "need."Forming a panel which is completely biased to the left does not "speak truth to power." It simply promotes the notion that "leftist views" are truth. Millions of US residents and voters do not agree with that proposition.
− Paul Thompson, Sioux Falls
More:Carbon pipelines clear legislative hurdles after South Dakota Senate kills 2 bills
Will Senators in Pierre put foreign investors over South Dakotans?
South Dakota political leaders and majority are cracking down on foreign ownership of South Dakota private farm land in the state. They are closing the loopholes that hid foreign investors that hide behind corporations. Will the GOP leadership and senators do the same when it comes to putting South Dakota Landowner rights before the rights of foreign investors?
Right now there is HB1133 that passed the house and is headed for the senate for a vote that will dictate the individual senators as well as the parties priorities.
A vote for HB1133 will limit the use of eminate domain for these non-public use co2 pipelines, it will NOT shut the door on them but make it that they have to get 100% VOLUNTARY easements from landowners for their projects and not use eminate domain as a tool for leverage to obtain easemnts.
A vote against HB1133 will speak volumes that the senators and GOP favor foreign investor backed corporations to exploit the constitution and tells individual land owners they and their right to protect their property are not as valued as the promise of revenue from foreign investor projects, revenue that will be payed from profits in your tax dollars in the form of 45q tax credits.
Will the senators try to walk both sides of the fence and be against foreign ownership but not stand up for South Dakota Landowners under attack by foreign investors to use eminate domain in the Taking of Their Land at the same time? Or will they equally protect South Dakotan property owners as well as push to limit foreign purchase of South Dakota land by countries such as China ? HB 1133 vote will tell if our elected officials stand for all South Dakotans or if they stand for foreign investor wealthy and politically connected corporations.
− Rod Miles, Lennox
Contraception is not controversial
An open letter to the SD legislature regarding HC 6005When I first starting practicing medicine, I was at a national clinical meeting and the main speaker that day was talking about contraception. Her talk was titled “contraception saves the world” At first, I thought it was just hyperbole, but she was entirely serious and then proceeded to spell out how access to contraception can actually save the world. She went through study after study and showed how the data proved that contraception helps almost all local and global issues. From poverty, child abuse, food insecurity and drug use to climate change and terrorism. Spelling this out in this format would be to long but basically allowing women to control when they have children allows them to make better decisions for their families and communities which ultimately results in improved lives for everyone.Over the almost 20 years of being an Obstetrician/Gynecologist, I have seen firsthand how contraception impacts the patients I care for:
The teenager struggling in school because she is missing five days of school a month due to horrible pain with periods is transformed to a happy teenager with straight A's heading to college.
The woman who misses work due to heavy bleeding can now fully function at work and is no longer in danger of losing her job.
The young woman with a heart defect for whom pregnancy would be life threatening can breath a sigh of relief. The women with a BRCA gene that can reduce her risk of ovarian cancer by half using birth control pills.
The woman who can have her endometrial cancer treated by a progesterone IUD so can keep her uterus and have the children she always wanted.
The married transplant patient who is on a medication that causes fetal birth defects who can worry less about an accidental pregnancy.
And of course, the women who simply want to wait until the time is right to have children and plan for them.
Contraception helps with a variety of medical issues and allows women to finish high school, get college degrees, have careers. It helps lift them out of poverty and allows them to put more time, energy, and money into the children they have. Worldwide this translates into less people on the planet fighting for resources, food, jobs – which is how it helps with issues such as climate change and terrorism.It is also cost effective. Every dollar the US spends on contraception saves 4-12 dollars depending on the factors looked at (the cost of prenatal care and delivery or if it also includes lost wages due to maternity leave, the cost of childcare, healthcare, and schooling for the child.)If you are against abortion – then you should really support contraception – the Guttamacher institute estimates that contraception prevents over 2 million unintended pregnancies and 700,000 abortions in the US every year. In fact, access to contraception and accurate sex education are the only things that have EVER been PROVEN to reduce abortionContraception saves lives. Spacing pregnancies reduces complications and saves mother’s lives and children’s lives. It is safer than pregnancy, always. Every medication has risks and benefits, however for the majority of people the benefits of contraception outweigh the risks.CONTRACEPTION IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL. 95% of women use contraception. I’m willing to bet most of the women you know are where they are today at least in part because they had access to contraception.For all these reasons I am extremely disappointed that this resolution did not even pass the committee. Contraception is essential for women and our legislature is extremely out of touch with reality of women's lives if they do not realize that.
-- Dr. Amy Kelley, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sioux Falls
South Dakota's curriculum decision is imminent
The k-12 standards/curriculum issue will be decided in April. Hillsdale College’s product may already be a done deal. It’s my observation that SD professional educators have not been properly respected during this process of evaluation and hearings. Hillsdale promoters have not provided -- nay, haven’t even tried to provide -- acceptable answers to many specific concerns voiced by SD professional educators.
Since many concerns of SD professionals were ignored, it follows that business practices were skirted. Additional issues will likely continue to arise since the Hillsdale curriculum is really complicated. It is a much different animal from what our professionals are familiar. Educators need answers any and all of their concerns.
As one of the most worrisome known concerns, many age-inappropriate topics exist at several grade levels in the Hillsdale product.
More:Beaudion: I can’t hear what you say, because I see what you do
Furthermore, a great many informational topics are scattered throughout mid-level and upper-level Hillsdale history standards. The sheer number of learning topics would overwhelm any single resource book that I’ve ever seen. Will each student in those grades get to carry more than one resource book for class and home? Or, on another track, is internet access a possible solution in connection with SD’s use of the Hillsdale curriculum? Professional educators and administrators need answers.
Finally, consider Gov. Noem’s desire and expectation that Hillsdale will serve to promote an improved attitude of patriotism amongst our students. Apparently, the past SD curriculum didn’t promote the love-your-country job well enough. Will someone tell us how Hillsdale curriculum is supposed to do this magic? Is it even desirable to think in those terms? In the mid-1930’s Joseph Goebbels designed and distributed communication materials that, using principles of psychology, were designed to generate patriotism and love-of-country. His efforts appear to have succeeded. But in the end, it didn’t turn out well.
− David L. Wegner, Sioux Falls
Gender-affirming care should remain between family and providors
Our legislature is spending too much time on issues that don’t become issues until the legislature goes into session.
The members of our legislature spend 40 days a year in Pierre voting on approximately 500 proposals. HB 1080 should NOT be even considered as it is sensitive topic that should be kept to the immediate family, and healthcare providers. 105 citizen legislators have no business invading the privacy of our citizens. They have no background or training to talk about HB 1080 in any meaningful way whatsoever except to give their opinion. And everyone has one of those. This is a medical and psychological issue.
Which legislators campaigned on this issue? Was it a topic of pre-legislative meetings? I never knew that this was a “public “ crisis until this bill was heard in committee.
It has been said that that no one is safe when the legislature is in session. Maybe we would be safer with a shorter session. Maybe we should drive in our own lane.
− Ed Olson, Mitchell
Could waterways become open sewers once more?
“The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source into “navigable waters” unless otherwise authorized under the Act. “Navigable waters” are defined in the Act as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” Thus, “waters of the United States” is a threshold term establishing the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The term “waters of the United States” is not defined by the Act but has been defined by the agencies in regulations since the 1970s and jointly implemented in the agencies’ respective programmatic activities”We have had a long history of contaminants poured into our creeks, lakes and streams, or areas that during wet seasons that flow into our waterways from farms, towns, cities and other industries. Prior to our Clear Water Act some of our rivers were so polluted they were actually caching on fire. It was not till the Clean Water Act was written that we started to reverse the massive damage that had already been done, from the destruction of the Great Lakes, to the Homestake Gold mine sending deadly pollutants from Lead all the way to the Gulf Coast damaging our fisheries as it went. This bill forced Homestake to either close or clean up their act. What Homestake did was development new technology that not only cleaned up their water but mines all over the world use this technology to keep their industry clean and operating.The New Republican Party is determined to take us back to those days when children could not play in a creek, pond, river or lake without serious damage to their health. Do we really want to go back to a time when our waterways were open sewers because it costs money to keep them clean.Attorney General Jackley end this effort to take away the protections of our clean waters. Do the right thing.
− Brent Cox, Sturgis
How to submit a letter to the editor:
Letters need to be no more than about 300 words, and will need to include first and last name, address, city and title. Addresses won’t be publicized, of course, but it’s a way for us to make sure those who submit a letter are who they say they are.
Letters will run on Sundays in print and online as we receive them. There may be moments, however, when we don't have any as we work to solicit interest and actively rebuild this part of our coverage for readers.
You can submit those to News Director Shelly Conlon by emailing sconlon@argusleader.com or submit them through our online form here, which also is sent directly to the news director.
This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: How to keep the 2nd Amendment intact, culture wars and a Canaries thank you: Your letters
