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.
Now, it's not like there are roving packs of abortion doctors lurking on the outskirts of Pierre or Sioux Falls, they've been gone since 94. So, I really wonder who this legislation is aimed at, exactly. Nevertheless, the bill would clearly make it legal to kill an abortion provider in the state as "justifiable self-defense." But I believe the bill is aimed at women.
It's about power.
It's about saying to a woman "You will give birth when you get pregnant, and if you don't, well...you'll have the blood of a lot of people on your hands if you try to get an abortion. You wouldn't want to be responsible for that, would you? Of course not."
From a legal and moral standpoint, this is insanity. But we've finally openly reached the point that we've been dancing around for decades now, is killing an abortion provider justified? And as far as South Dakota Republicans are concerned, the answer is yes.
Tree of liberty, and all that.
Posts
16 comments:
But we've finally openly reached the point that we've been dancing around for decades now, is killing an abortion provider justified? And as far as South Dakota Republicans are concerned, the answer is yes.
The answer is no.
The bill is clear. Homicide is justified when there is an attempt to commit a crime. According to federal law, abortion isn't a crime. As you've said, it's settled law. Therefore, the bill is not justifying the killing of abortion providers. They know the law as well as anyone else. So how can you claim Republicans are trying to justify that?
But I believe the bill is aimed at women...
It's about saying to a woman "You will give birth when you get pregnant, and if you don't, well...you'll have the blood of a lot of people on your hands if you try to get an abortion. You wouldn't want to be responsible for that, would you? Of course not."
Or it could be that it protects those who would kill a criminal attempting to harm or kill a pregnant woman and the unborn child. Since more children are born alive than aborted (at least for now), a law such as this would make sense.
From a legal and moral standpoint, this is insanity.
After the Gosnall revelations, the pro-abortion zealots have lost any claim they may have had at the moral high ground or even the notion of any kind of morality.
This is more of the usual nonsense I've seen you post here,SteveAR. The bill doesn't mention harm to a pregnant woman, does it? Of course not, because anti-choice folks aren't really concerned about the well-being or rights of the women involved.
As for the 'Gosnall revelations', pro-choice supporters don't defend the actions of this ONE abortion provider, any more than I believe that all conservatives are responsible for the immoral actions of some in their ranks. I think it's less than 'moral' for you to engage in such broad-based smear attempts.
You're really trying to justify what you consider to be pre-meditated murder with pre-meditated murder, and you say others are immoral?
You've got no soul, Steve. Must help you sleep at night.
You're really trying to justify what you consider to be pre-meditated murder with pre-meditated murder,...
Nope. I was quite clear in what I said. This bill doesn't target abortion providers. If you'd bother to go back to the Mother Jones piece, the Republican who sponsored the bill says that exact same thing. I was also quite clear when I said it didn't target women either. Believe it or not, some women actually want to keep their babies. It's apparent that SD had no law protecting those who would protect the unborn from the acts of criminals, which doesn't include abortionists.
But like a robot you are so paranoid about abortion that you don't even consider an unborn child as a human being, an unborn child parents want. And you say I've got no soul?
Anonymous:
The bill doesn't mention harm to a pregnant woman, does it?
Sure it does. A) Where do you think unborn children reside, and B) didn't you read the bill?
As for the 'Gosnall revelations', pro-choice supporters don't defend the actions of this ONE abortion provider,...
Sure they did. Pennsylvania officials who are pro-abortion zealots defended Gosnall for nearly 40 years, never shutting him down once. They are like anyone else who supports abortion. You don't like it, too bad.
But the bill doesn't differentiate between a doctor performing abortion and a mugger with a gun.
I'd say they'd need to fix the legislation, yes?
So, if a woman gets pregnant in SD, and she tries to get an abortion, what exactly is allowed to happen? Can she be held against her will to prevent her leaving? If she resists, and she gets to a clinic, is he actually allowed to rush the door and attack a doctor? If clinic security tries to restrain him, is he allowed to shoot them as well? If he is killed by security guards in the attempt to get to a doctor, can that be deemed 'self defense' anymore? Does it have to be during the abortion itself, or are they allowed to go whole hog and start shooting them at their home? Does this apply to the SD reservations? If the abortion goes through and he kills the doctor at a later time, is he still considered a murderer or is it still justifiable?
I think the obvious solution to all these problems is: If you are a woman, the second you reach the age of consent, leave South Dakota. Run far, run fast and don't look behind you. Mt. Rushmore ain't all that.
But the bill doesn't differentiate between a doctor performing abortion and a mugger with a gun.
Sure it does. In both sections.
Remember the story of the Three Little Pigs, and the second built the house of straw and the third built the house of bricks? Sheppard used so much straw for her straw man that the big bad wolf wouldn't have been able to knock down the second house.
Face it. Y'all screwed the pooch on this.
And what qualifies as "harm" to the unborn child? The mother drinking and smoking while pregnant? While I understand laws creating justifiable homicide in self-defense, this legislation is so poorly written that a number of situations could constitute harm, not just a doctor performing abortion.
What's screwed here is the folks who wrote this bill. There are holes big enough to drive a truck through it.
It's justified "if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished."
Any decent lawyer could argue under the letter of the law as written would indeed apply to absolve a person of killing anyone performing an abortion.
Screw 'abortion' - if it's just reasonable grounds for injury is all that's required, a woman or relative can claim the presence of cigarette smoke, alcohol, or even a firearm as cause, based on increased risk of injury.
I think we're missing a bigger picture here; this law will allow a woman who is pregnant to basically force people in her immediate presence to sit quietly in a corner and and silently do her bidding lest they upset her, raise her blood pressure and risk reasonable harm to the fetus, and to prevent that risk, she shall be armed at all times. We can roll half a dozen of these women into a Tea Party rally, and they will be forced to run screaming or abandon their firearms.
And no, I don't actually think this, but it pleases me to imagine the repercussions in ad absurdum, since other legal issues are clearly being ignored. I don't live in SD, but my prior advice seems more apt as I peruse how silly their lege is.
What's screwed here is the folks who wrote this bill. There are holes big enough to drive a truck through it.
Fair enough. But look where the bill is. It passed through the SD House Judiciary Committee. The SD House has yet to vote on it. The SD Senate hasn't even seen it. It's bound to go through its committee(s) and put in their changes. I would guess the SD House, the SD Senate, and the SD Senate committees have their lawyers who will possibly tweak the bill to make sure the loopholes are taken out.
Although you have the right, you really have no business accusing SD Republicans of being immoral or of trying to justify the murder of abortion providers. Fanatical pro-abortion officials (of both parties) condoned and defended, using the "access to abortion" excuse and who have the same belief you do, the murders that occurred in the Gosnall abortion mill, and God knows how many other abortion mills in Pennsylvania for 20 years.
abanterer, what the hell are you talking about? You're completely incoherent.
It seems that Mr. Jensen is now changing the wording of the bill. Oh, and South Dakota has a law on the books that covers unborn children and self defense. So why was this law needed unless the point was to then use it to say that unborn children are full persons legally?
I am mocking this law, Steve - you have to admit that as it currently stands it is very mockable. I agree with your statement that, yes the law is unfinished and hasn't been voted on yet. I point out that this is precisely the moment to point out the issues you have with a law, unless all the Tea Party rallies are willing to admit they were wasting peoples time in the run up to HCR.
But, this is the heart of the proposed law, that it would be permissible to attack or even kill a doctor who would administer an abortion. So, I have to ask: if this law applied to Dr. Tiller, would Scott Roeder go free? Why not? I consider this man to be a murderer, and if the law in what ever form it takes would let him slide, then it is a bad law.
I'm not sure what loopholes could be removed from this to not allow a protester for a clinic to not raise this law as a defense; if it defines the death of an abortion doctor while performing a task with the consent of the woman and currently legal in the United States as justifiable homicide, then it is an invitation for a disaster.
Again, I would reiterate my earlier advice to women in SD: Run Far, Run Fast and Don't Look Back.
abanterer:
But, this is the heart of the proposed law, that it would be permissible to attack or even kill a doctor who would administer an abortion.
You're pathetic. You know what else you are? A soulless ghoul. You have no business even thinking abortionists are at risk when there are more like Gosnall running around.
You're advising the women of SD? To do what, find another like Gosnall?
[Bah - my post didn't go through - too wordy I suppose. I will be briefer, and less profane]
Steve, are you now saying that all abortionists are like this guy Gosnall? You're really going to bring in 'guilt by association' as an argument? Some dentists are known to sexually molest their patients under sedation, do you hold that all dentists do this? I would have to conclude you did, and am glad you live in another state, lest the halitosis cause my face to melt.
So, yeah, I am worried about how some nut bar will react if a law suggests he will not be accountable for the assault and potential murder of a doctor, and it being a free country, I am saying so. You seem to not care about the chaos it would cause, because you really hate abortion doctors. Sorry if I am against another doctor being shot to further a favored political cause, but I can't bring myself to care much about making you happy.
PS: yeah, I do think the women of SD might well leave a state that doesn't seem to have their interests at heart. Shouldn't women be able to exercise the freedom of movement to go where they won't be treated as expendable by fatuous jerks? Or does that only apply to bitter moral scolds like you?
See? I can call people names too.
Post a Comment