Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) vetoed a bill that would have classified a potential central bank digital currency as money while excluding cryptocurrencies.

Policymakers at the Federal Reserve have considered the adoption of a digital dollar over the last several years. Noem said in a veto letter to the South Dakota House of Representatives that the legislation “opens the door to the risk that the federal government could more easily adopt a CBDC, which then may become the only viable digital currency.”

“At this moment in time, such a government-backed electronic currency has not yet been created,” Noem told lawmakers. “More importantly, South Dakota should not open the door to a potential future overreach by the federal government.”

The bill would have defined money as a “medium of exchange that is currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government.” Lawmakers passed the measure 49-17 in the House of Representatives and 24-9 in the Senate, both of which are margins that would allow for the overturn of the veto in the two chambers.

Noem added that cryptocurrencies, which are decentralized digital assets that can be transferred between virtual wallets, would not be considered money under the legislation. She asserted that the bill therefore “needlessly” limited freedoms and placed citizens at a “business disadvantage” by discouraging development within the nascent sector.

Opponents of a potential central bank digital currency assert that such an initiative would render citizens vulnerable to government censorship and surveillance. Unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies, digital assets managed by central banks are not decentralized and are tethered to their analog counterparts. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said two years ago that his “mind is open” to a digital dollar, noting that he was “legitimately undecided” on whether the “benefits outweigh the costs” of central bank digital currencies.

“We would want very broad support in society and in Congress,” he told lawmakers. “It’s a very, very important initiative, and I do think we should ideally get authorization.”

A central bank digital currency would preserve the international role of the dollar while mitigating pitfalls intrinsic to cryptocurrencies such as liquidity risk and credit risk, according to a paper from the Federal Reserve. The central bank recently conducted a simulation with Citi, Mastercard, BNY Mellon, and other companies to determine the “feasibility of payments between financial institutions” using tokenized assets.

Increased skepticism toward cryptocurrencies comes in the aftermath of FTX and other digital asset companies controlled by Sam Bankman-Fried filing for bankruptcy at the end of last year after customers learned that FTX had commingled funds with trading company Alameda Research. Bankman-Fried pleaded not guilty to multiple charges, which include conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations.

Recent tumult in the cryptocurrency sector and the widely publicized criminal proceedings against Bankman-Fried have quickly eroded consumers’ trust in the novel assets: a survey conducted by CNBC and Momentive found that 60% of Americans see the risk of cryptocurrency investments as “high,” while only 10% say the assets carry little or no risk.

Fundamental freedoms have been dealt an extreme blow by the Parliament of the United Kingdom with the passage of a new bill on Tuesday rolling out so-called “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England and Wales. The Public Order Bill puts into force 150-meter censorship zones banning any form of “influence,” including silent prayer and consensual conversations, wherever abortions are performed. The U.K., the birthplace of the Magna Carta and many of the foundational freedoms we enjoy in the West, is now leading the charge on a new era of thought-crime prosecution.

One need only look to recent arrests to understand the immense human rights ramifications of the new law. Where censorship zones are already in force, they have engendered severe violations of the right to free expression. Take for example the viral arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, whose case reveals the state of legal chaos that censorship zones generate. Isabel was first arrested in December for the “crime” of standing in peaceful silence, praying, on a public sidewalk classified as a censorship zone near a Birmingham, England abortion facility. In February, she was acquitted fully in court, only to be arrested once again for the imperceptible act of silent prayer on Monday of this week.

At the time of the second incident, the arresting officer commented: “You’ve said you’re engaging in prayer, which is the offense”. To which Isabel counters: “Silent prayer”. His response says it all —”You were still engaging in prayer, which is the offense”. Censorship zones empower authorities to arrest peaceful individuals on the basis of their thoughts alone. This is a catastrophic failure for a democratic society where every person should have the right to peaceful expression, not to mention, their own thoughts, in the place of their choosing.

And Isabel was not alone in what befell her. Catholic priest Father Sean Gough was criminally charged, and likewise found “not guilty,” for standing in silent prayer in the same zone as Isabel. Absurdly, he was also charged for having an “unborn lives matter” bumper sticker affixed to his car, which was parked in the zone. Army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was fined for silent prayer in Bournemouth, England. Bournemouth offers a particularly outrageous example of censorship zone lunacy. The city has in place an eerily specific ordinance, ominously posted on signposts listing prohibited activities. These include sprinkling holy water, kneeling, reading scripture, and prayer considered to be an “act of approval/disapproval” toward abortion.

Most egregiously, the debate over the new nationwide law revealed that pro-censorship Members of Parliament deem the specific targeting of silent prayer acceptable. It is no accident that prayer, in all of its forms, is captured by the new prohibitions. This triggered a Parliamentary vote on an amendment to exclude both prayer and consensual conversation from the bill, which failed with 116 votes in favor and 299 against. 299 British Members of Parliament think prayer should be an offense under the law in certain public places. Let that sink in.

No doubt the new law will give rise to countless more abuses similar to that of Isabel, Father Sean, and Adam. Peaceful citizens throughout the country are now under real risk of legal sanction for exercising their most basic right to pray, think, and act in accordance with their convictions. At the same time, parts of the U.K. are experiencing rapidly escalating violent crimes without adequate response from law enforcement. What happens when already stretched police resources are redirected to patrol for prayer?

Censorship zone aficionados are quick to cite harassment as justification for these draconian measures. But this is a severe distortion of their real, and intended, impact. Censorship zones don’t “buffer” women from harassment. Harassment is always wrong, which is why it is already fully criminalized under U.K. law. It is clear that these zones are not about the protection of women. What they do is give the state the power to stifle views that are deemed disagreeable—in this case the view that both women and their unborn children are worthy of protection.

Today, the silencing power of the state in the U.K. is being leveraged full-throttle against the pro-life view. Tomorrow, censorship zones could be deployed to target another issue altogether. Parliament has opened the door to ever-proliferating state censorship in the U.K. Who’s to say that the next push won’t be for censorship zones around schools, government buildings, or any other public spaces deemed to require a protective bubble of this sort?

Let this be a clear warning to all concerned with the protection of fundamental freedoms. In the U.S., we must robustly defend our First Amendment protections. The thought police are real and standing by across the pond. Prayer can never be a crime, and nobody should be punished for peacefully living, and thinking, according to what they believe.

Elyssa Koren is an international human rights lawyer and director of legal communications for ADF International. Follow her on Twitter: @Elyssa_Koren 

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.