South Dakota to legalize murder of abortionists?

Torgo · Feb 15, 2011

What could possibly go wrong?

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers

regdog · Feb 15, 2011

Oh, for the love of...

Alpha Echo · Feb 15, 2011

No way. Please, please tell me there's no way something like that could possibly pass.

LOG · Feb 15, 2011

regdog said:
Oh, for the love of...

/sign

DamaNegra · Feb 15, 2011

So... um... is it justifiable to murder a mother who wants to abort her baby, even though the baby will die too? How does this even...? Gaaah.

Don · Feb 15, 2011

FFS.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 15, 2011

The interesting thing about South Dakota politics is that it seems like the legislators are quite a bit more conservative than the citizenry. If voters twice rejected a ban on abortion by double digits, how happy are they going to be about a bill like this one?

Don · Feb 15, 2011

Michael Wolfe said:
The interesting thing about South Dakota politics is that it seems like the legislators are quite a bit more conservative than the citizenry. If voters twice rejected a ban on abortion by double digits, how happy are they going to be about a bill like this one?

Since when has that mattered? The citizenry weren't happy about Kelo, to pick a favorite bone, and contacts with Congress ran somewhere around 100 to 1 against the bailout.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 15, 2011

Kelo was a Supreme Court decision, and the court wasn't accountable to the people of Connecticut. OTOH, in theory, that's not as true with the legislators in South Dakota. Will anything actually happen, though? That's a separate animal.

Don · Feb 15, 2011

Oh, my bad. I forgot that the legislators in South Dakota are accountable to the people of South Dakota. When election time finally gets here they'll throw out team "A" and turn things over to team "B."

Sorta the way it worked in the mid-term elections.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 15, 2011

Don said:
Oh, my bad. I forgot that the legislators in South Dakota are accountable to the people of South Dakota. When election time finally gets here they'll throw out team "A" and turn things over to team "B." Sorta the way it worked in the mid-term elections.

Didn't you read the last two lines of my last post? I don't think we're really disagreeing here.

Don · Feb 15, 2011

Yeah, I was just restating our agreement on that part of your quote.

Shadow Dragon · Feb 15, 2011

I hope this stays in the national spotlight for a while to come. Let's hear the person who putting this forward have to answer questions about it on CNN or some other national syndicated news.

Kaiser-Kun · Feb 15, 2011

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus

They know that a fetus is, you know, a little fragile? And the list of things that could harm a fetus is quite vast?

...maybe they'll outlaw anvils. Because they could be dropped on the fetus.

MarkEsq · Feb 15, 2011

Kaiser-Kun said:
...maybe they'll outlaw anvils. Because they could be dropped on the fetus.

... and road runners. Lord above, won't someone protect the road runners?!?!

Michael Wolfe · Feb 15, 2011

Kaiser-Kun said:
They know that a fetus is, you know, a little fragile? And the list of things that could harm a fetus is quite vast?

That was something that occurred to me as well. It reminded me that I was recently discussing with someone the ethics of bartenders serving alcohol to a pregnant woman.

That said, while the scope of the bill theoretically seems broader than just dealing with abortion doctors, obviously abortion doctors are the people most threatened here. In fact, considering there's only one abortion clinic in South Dakota, it might only be one person, and a small handful at most.

fireluxlou · Feb 15, 2011

WTF, I can't..... not today at least.

Monkey · Feb 15, 2011

A fetus is INSIDE A WOMAN. There are already laws saying you can kill someone who is about to apply deadly force to a woman's stomach, or do whatever it takes to keep someone from attacking a woman, whether there's a fetus involved or not.

Under what circumstances could a fetus be threatened with deadly force when the woman carrying the fetus is not?

Abortion.

This is a sick, sick law aimed at doctors providing a legal and sometimes medically necessary procedure.

Snowstorm · Feb 15, 2011

DamaNegra said:
So... um... is it justifiable to murder a mother who wants to abort her baby, even though the baby will die too? How does this even...? Gaaah.

That's what I was thinking when I read the OP.

This legislation ... I just want to puke.

Maxinquaye · Feb 15, 2011

Isn't murder a federal crime?

Michael Wolfe · Feb 15, 2011

Maxinquaye said:
Isn't murder a federal crime?

Actually, in most cases, it's not.

Maxinquaye · Feb 15, 2011

Michael Wolfe said:
Actually, in most cases, it's not.

Ah, okay. I thought it was.

CDSinex · Feb 15, 2011

Kaiser-Kun said:
They know that a fetus is, you know, a little fragile? And the list of things that could harm a fetus is quite vast?

...maybe they'll outlaw anvils. Because they could be dropped on the fetus.

Yes, and convenience store clerks who sell pregnant women cigarettes, or the CEOs of companies whose factories spew toxins that cause birth defects or miscarriages.

JimmyB27 · Feb 15, 2011

The wording in the OP's quote does say that "homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child...". I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that someone buying cigarettes is attempting to resist harm.
Not that that detracts from the dangerous lunacy of this bill should it pass.

ETA: Now I think of it, is a woman getting an abortion really attempting to resist harm?

Shadow Dragon · Feb 15, 2011

JimmyB27 said:
ETA: Now I think of it, is a woman getting an abortion really attempting to resist harm?

It doesn't have to be the mother of the fetus that is resisting it. If someone believes that person is going to harm a fetus in the near future, they'd have the legal right to said person.

South Dakota to legalize murder of abortionists?

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

The Scavengers

I should be writing.

Lagrangian

Mexican on the loose!

All Living is Local

Jambo Bwana

All Living is Local

Jambo Bwana

All Living is Local

Jambo Bwana

All Living is Local

!

Clever title pending.

Jambo Bwana

Is me.

Baby plot bunneh sniffs out a clue

That cheeky buggerer

Jambo Bwana

That cheeky buggerer

Imagine something clever here.

Hoopy frood