South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers

[Hissyspit]

Source: Mother Jones

South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers

A bill under consideration in the Mount Rushmore State would make preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide" in many cases.

By Kate Sheppard on Tue. February 15, 2011 3:00 AM PDT

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.

Jensen did not return calls to his home or his office requesting comment on the bill, which is cosponsored by 22 other state representatives and four state senators.

"The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers," says Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers. Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. "This is not an abstract bill," Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a "misguided extremist invokes this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer," the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families warned in a message to supporters last week.

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

[HereSince1628]

1. Does "gone around the bend" mean anything anymore?

Representative government has gone feral.

[Gman]

2. Sounds like something out of Shariah law

[fasttense]

8. That's exactly what I thought

But it comes across more as encoding terrorist like acts into law.

Next up the scarlet letter?????

[AtheistCrusader]

86. At least it won't pass. SD tried to ban abortion 2 years ago, failed to pass.

The people there just don't actually want this stupid shit anyway.

Thankfully.

[era veteran]

33. My first thought

[valerief]

42. Bingo! That's what they want here. Total subjugation. nt

[Xenotime]

79. Sharia law is nothing compared to what these wack jobs want.

[SnakeEyes]

101. well now this is silly

Let's point out how extreme these people actually are without looking ridiculous by exaggeration. Sharia is far worse, especially in regards to women's rights and safety. You do know they stone women for being raped, right?

[WatsonT]

114. Yes but at least they allow abortions

oh right, they don't. Yeah shariah is a lot worse. People need perspective.


Just because it's happening here doesn't mean it is infinitely worse than anything else that has happened anywhere else, ever.

[Turborama]

143. "they stone women for being raped"? Who's "they"? And where did this happen?

[Control-Z]

147. Yes, they do.

How Sharia Law Punishes Raped Women

"On October 30, 2008, the United Nations condemned the stoning to death of Aisha Duhulowa, a 13-year-old girl who had been gang-raped and then sentenced to death by a Sharia court for fornication..."

More here:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-sharia-law-punishes-raped-women/blog-272979/?page=5

[Turborama]

148. Again. "They" means who and where was this? I'll tell you... 50 men in Somalia.

That was a "Sharia Court" set up in Somalia, which your blog failed to mention for some reason.

UN condemns stoning to death of 13-year-old Somali girl

Posted : Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:54:32 GMT
Author : DPA

Nairobi - The United Nations children's agency UNICEF Tuesday condemned the recent stoning to death of a 13-year-old Somali girl for adultery in the port town of Kismayo, which was taken over by Islamist insurgents in August. The girl, Aisha Duhulow, was last week stoned to death for adultery under Islamic law, or sharia. Initial reports said that the girl was in her twenties.

UNICEF said that reports indicated the girl had not committed adultery, but been raped by three men while walking to visit her grandmother in the capital Mogadishu.

http://www.fadp.org/news/2008111103/

See, Somalia is a country which has been in anarchy for 20 years and is a place where those who are in control at any place in any particular point in time can make up any 'court' and any 'law' they want.

Are there any more stories about Muslims "stoning women to death for rape"? Or is this a one off instance of a bunch of 50 lunatics in Somlia being used to taint 1.5 billion Muslims?


Words are important.



I'm not defending these actions in any way. However, we should always be careful when using "They" & "Them".



BTW The only newspaper he links to is "The Daily Star", which is like England's hard copy version of Faux News.


The only links I can find to The Daily Star's Bangladesh story online are sites like "Jihadwatch", "Redstate.com" and Glenn Beck's "The Blaze": http://www.google.com/search?q=Local+Sharia+courts+in+Bangladesh+regularly+punish+raped+minor+girls+and+women+by+flogging+and+beating+them+with+shoes.&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

[Beartracks]

141. Wow, it does. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. still would br illegal federally, no?

[Callisto32]

10. I believe that murder would generally fall within state jurisdiction.

I don't know what that means if all the contacts are in-state.

[Pab Sungenis]

16. But it might fall under RICO

at the Federal level. And isn't there a Federal law protecting abortion providers?

[RufusTFirefly]

53. Perhaps. But the primary role is supreme intimidation

Demonizing doctors who provide abortions is simply going to make them stop or move elsewhere.
It's going to take a great deal of courage to keep providing abortions in this sort of climate.

Many doctors are wonderful humanitarians, but how many would be willing to risk their lives for providing a procedure?

I can be somewhat patient with slow progress but this ominous and alarmingly fast shift backwards is breaking my heart.

[SnakeEyes]

103. How would it fall under RICO?

[Pab Sungenis]

106. If the killer can be connected

to groups like Operation Rescue.

[Wednesdays]

146. And if they can't, then we say, "Oh, well."?

:shrug:

[JoePhilly]

113. The effort to pass the law sounds like a conspiracy to commit murder to me.

[slackmaster]

71. It would still be illegal under state law. Read the bill. It's poorly written, but would not...

...actually do what the headline suggests.

[Locrian]

4. what's next? "honor killings"???? nt

[get the red out]

14. You beat me to it!

This is getting seriously medieval.

[newspeak]

151. yeah, and when you have nuts like Beck talking

about Nazis all of the time. Hitler OUTLAWED abortion, so did Hirohito. Some of these fools, to me, are more in line with Nazis. Homophobia, anti-abortion and extreme prejudice (doesn't matter if it's jews or muslims-it's "other" not like me mentality).

When I think of these anti-women creeps, I don't think of them as pro-life--because many of them would more than willing kill or condone war. I think of Coueceus(sp) of Romania forcing women to have a certain number of babies (even when they couldn't afford it), I think of Hitler (for the sake of the Aryan race) outlawing abortion and initiating the breeding farms. I think of some of the worst tyrants in history.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. It will be struck down as unconstitutional as it's overly broad.

[madmax]

22. For me that's not the even the point

the point is that 'murder' based on a legal medical procedure already decided as settled law.

When do the crazies stop?

[EnviroBat]

29. Really? Even if it makes it to the Supremem Court?

Have you seen the mutants that are controlling the Supreme Court lately? The repugs are wielding ultimate power these days and getting away with destroying any concept of a "constitution" this country once had. Nothing would surprise me, and I can actually see this BS legislation gaining some traction.

[happyslug]

35. Who has the standing to make the Constitutional Challenge?

The problem with this law being struck down as unconstitutional is the only people who would have standing to challenge the law would be prosecutors, who would be under tremendous political pressure NOT to do so. Thus some kills an abortion doctor and then claims this statute as his defense, the local DA then drops the case do to the fact this statute makes such a murder "Self Defense". No one else has standing to challenge the law, thus will remain on the books and "valid" until some District Attorney decides he wants to prosecute some murder who is claiming this defense.

Please note this statute (if passed) will have no effect on any subsequent Civil Action against the Murder nor any Federal Civil Rights claim. It might be possible for a Federal Attorney to challenge this statute if it is used as a defense in a Federal Civil Rights action, but then all you would get is that it is a unconstitutional defense in any Civil Rights Action NOT unconstitutional against any state Criminal Action.

The only way a Private Citizen would have standing to bring a constitutional Challenge to this proposed Statute (it has NOT passed yet) would to file a Private Criminal action against the Murderer when the Local District Attorney refuses to do so (provided that such a Private Criminal Action is still permitted in North Dakota in regards to the Crime of Murder, most states have stripped the right to bring a private criminal complaint from victims in regards to felonies and gave the sole right to bring such an action to the District Attorneys of that state or the Attorney General). If such a private criminal action is permitted in North Dakota (or is otherwise permitted by the Courts of that State, people tend to forget such private Criminal Actions where the norm prior to the adoption of what we call District Attorneys in the US from about 1820-1850, such private criminal complaints are now rare, (except in summary offenses, not permitted by statute in most other cases. When such actions were permitted, such private Criminal actions could include murder as seen in the trial, conviction and execution of the Molly McQuires in the 1880s).

My point is that unless someone brings an action to force his local District Attorney to bring a Murder Change and in that proceeding get this proposed statute (if it becomes law) struck down as a denial of Equal Protection of the Laws, the only person who would have standing in such a case would be the local District Attorney, who will be under tremendous political pressure NOT to challenge this proposed law.

[prairierose]

78. The last abortion law they passed that was overly broad...

was struck down as unconstitutional right away. So this time, they are coming at it from a different direction. This, however, is an attempt to legalize hate and violence. The national anti-choice groups spend millions here to test these attempts at intimidation and I am getting tired of my state being a testing ground for hatred and violence when it is not that way.

For many years we have had various abortion initiatives on the ballot and every time, the people vote it down. But the anti-choice people come back year after year with some new attempt at turning the clock back to the 13th century.

[happyslug]

109. In that case, someone had standing, that could be a woman who wanted an abortion

My point was in any on this proposed law, such a woman would have no standing, and thus no right to file in court to overturn this proposed statute. The only person with standing would be the local District Attorney, who may just refuse to challenge the law (if passed) and as such no one will ever take the law in front of a judge to get in struck down, for no one else can (No Standing, no right to challenge the law).

[Vinca]

6. Does that mean the denial of prenatal care which results in infant

death will cause lawmakers who vote against humane health care to be executed?

[valerief]

43. Ha!!! If only. I'm sure that will be covered by 'act of god'. nt

[kcks]

7. As I

read this bill it is referring to the woman defending herself and the baby not a third party.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171P.htm

[Hissyspit]

9. "It could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone..."

"The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the 'unborn child.'"

"...the bill is legally dubious."

[kcks]

12. Not as

I understand it.

Section 2. The affirmative defense provided in section 1 of this Act does not apply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;

(2) Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense. However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the complete safety of her unborn child; or

(3) The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman's body.

[nalnn]

38. Amazing isn't it?

No one posting other than you and I apparently bothered to even read the bill's provisions. They had much rather overreact to the purported contents and intentions thereby remaining oblivious when something more sinister happens later on.

[Occulus]

50. This is called 'mission creep' and we are RIGHT to 'fly off the handle' about it.

This is something Republicans are very, very good at in general, across a broad swath of topics. 'Mission creep' occurs when you get something to be accepted incrementally, piece by piece and bit by bit.

You change 'fetus' to 'unborn child', and let that percolate for a few years. Then you introduce legislation requiring women to see an ultrasound or read propaganda before an abortion. Then you declare that abortions are only allowed following 'forcible rape'. You make abortions illegal if there's any detectable heartbeat. Then you introduce legislation whose language is designed to make people feel comfortable with combining the ideas of abortion and 'justifiable homicide' to prevent the same.

This law wasn't designed to allow what people on this thread are accusing it of doing. It was crafted for the sole purpose of desensitizing to violence those opposed to abortions in nearly every case.

We aren't a religious government, so we can't simply declare a law and have it go into effect overnight. We have to have the people onboard in one respect or another to pass any given law, and the only way to get a law like this even considered- hell, the only way to introduce legislation like this without blushing furiously- is to first make the people okay with 'going a bit too far in some respects" each and every single time.

If you compare the starting point of a given controversial issue with its ending point, you'll see a vast difference between the two positions, and American society is not well-adapted to those kinds of sudden, vast changes. However, the Republicans- and, in this particular case, the anti-abortion-in-virtually-every-case wing of the Republicans- have perfected the 'art of the boiling pot', if you will, and have set their sights on very long-term goals.

Elimination of abortion in all but the most extreme (and sometimes not even then) cases is one of those goals. This legislation is an attempt to plant fear into the public consciousness, fear of an eventual 'castle law' of sorts, even though the law itself doesn't specifically provide that. It's smarmy, it's disingenuous, and it's completely despicable.

But we've come to expect that from the Republican Party.

[nalnn]

57. I see what you're saying.

And I agree on most points.

One thing I would argue semantics on is the above mission creep. I can't think of any bill of any type that does not get review and amendment before it becomes law. This is another example. The provision narrowing the possible defendants to include only the pregnant woman was bound to happen. In this case the mission creep was one in favor of pregnant women.

Also, my response above was not to dismiss the possible ramifications of the this becoming law, only to poke fun at some of the responses and meant in jest (mostly). My second point was to remind the readers of my response that; becoming too focused on something like this, that will probably go nowhere, sometimes distracts us from seeing the serious 'Mission creep' that too often occurs with legislation in the U.S. Abortion, civil liberties, tax law... The list is long and the danger real. One is well advised to stay focused and not be deflected by rhetoric and smoke screens.

[WatsonT]

44. Ha!

Thanks for finding that quote.

Yeah the OP was pretty outrageous I suspected there was more to it.

Oh well, everyone got their 2 minutes of hate today.

[WatsonT]

46. Also

where did you get that? I couldn't find the link in the original article to any more than a short summary.

[kcks]

55. I

just searched for the bill by the number.

[whopis01]

67. Not even remotely...

The bill states explicitly that this defense only applies to the pregnant woman and not to any other parties.

[ronnie624]

72. No it doesn't.

You need to read further.

[ronnie624]

45. This bill has been extensively amended (hoghoused)

and may no longer be consistent with the original intention of the sponsor.

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, 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.

<http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm>

[nalnn]

49. Timing

Consider the timing of the OP vs. #7.

IMO the sponsor probably did not think he was including physicians in the pool of possible "criminals" who this law is intended to punish. Kind of hard to get elected to public office on a platform of soliciting murder, but who knows. Guy could be a crackpot for all I know.

Objectively, of course you would want a justifiable homicide law to protect an unborn baby from anyone who would deliberately attack a pregnant woman.

[ronnie624]

56. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. n/t

[nalnn]

58. Sorry

I'm too often not exactly clear in my posts... :(

What I meant was there probably wasn't time for the bill to get changed between the OP and #7, but I don't know.

If you're talking about the second part, I was just saying that I have no idea what the sponsor/writer of the original bill was thinking. The optimist in me says he just wanted to protect pregnant women and their babies but, as above, I don't know for sure.

[AlbertCat]

60. to protect an unborn baby from anyone who would deliberately attack a pregnant woman.

But are there not already laws protecting women, pregnant or otherwise, and men too? Are there laws just protecting people in wheelchairs from attempted homicide? How about a law just to protect twins? Isn't this a law for just a "special person"? I thought the GOP was against that kind of thing.

[slackmaster]

74. Given that South Dakota already has a "fetal murder" law, the version here wouldn't change anything

It's just a political stunt to appease extreme anti-abortion voters.

[ronnie624]

77. Perhaps it is just a political stunt.

But we might as well get the current wording of the bill correct.

[Xithras]

100. Yep. Theoretically, this same "right" already exists in other states like California

California law states that it is murder to forcibly kill a fetus against the will of the mother.

California law states that "defense of the life of another" is always a valid defense against a murder charge. As far as I'm aware, it's legal in every state in the union to apply lethal force in order to prevent the murder of an innocent third party.

Therefore, in California, if you see a person kicking a pregnant woman in the belly to get her to abort the child, it's generally legal to kill them in order to stop the assault. Your only legal hurdle would be proving that you couldn't have stopped the assault using a less than lethal method (e.g., assailant was much larger than you, or had a gun, knife, baseball bat, etc.)

I doubt it's ever actually happened, but with our current state laws, that would be an easy defense to make. "Your honor, I shot him in the head to prevent a murder, as defined by state law."

SD is just doing a little political grandstanding to appease the abortion protesters by codifying a legal right that generally already exists in any state with a fetal murder law.

[slackmaster]

105. Agreed on all factual points but one nit

Your only legal hurdle would be proving that you couldn't have stopped the assault using a less than lethal method (e.g., assailant was much larger than you, or had a gun, knife, baseball bat, etc.)

Not such "hurdle" exists in California state law. You only have to establish that the circumstances were "...sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person..." that the use of force was necessary to prevent a felony or an act that would have resulted in death or great bodily injury.

There is no weapons pissing contest in the law.

ETA link to the actual code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[Xithras]

154. Soo.....

The hurdle isn't "that you couldn't have stopped the assault", but "that you thought you couldn't have stopped the assault"? Actual ability isn't weighed?

That's interesting, and thanks for pointing it out. It certainly lowers the bar quite a bit.

[slackmaster]

155. The hurder is whether or not you can convince a court that you had a REASONABLE belief that force...

...was needed to stop or prevent a crime.

[WatsonT]

137. That means that according to many posters on this thread

California has already succumbed to shariah law! Get out while you still can.

[snooper2]

83. It's okay, reading comprehension isn't a lot of folks strong suit

:)

[CanonRay]

11. They sure know how to take the moral "high groung"

S.D.has to take the prize for nuttiest state legislature.

[AlbertCat]

63. nuttiest state legislature.

I met a guy from SD who was "libertarian" and thought there was no need for government at all. :eyes: (Yeah.... maybe when everybody lives 20 miles from their nearest neighbor....but try it in, like NYC.... or even Rapid City)

THIS LAW is compatible with that kind of thinking?????

Morans!

[MasonJar]

13. This is horrifying! We are now officially a country without sense or conscience.

Any country where such men get elected to make laws is in need of immediate revision. Kings and queens are looking better to me every day. Obviously many of the so-called common man are incapable of educated, rational thought. There are just too many elected officials who either are out for the aggrandizement of the own purses or are after extremists laws that only benefit their own deranged view of the world. What can we do? If it weren't for my children and grandchild, I'd be moving to one of the EU countries.

[Joanne98]

15. We need to bring back the Equal Rights Amendment

The American Taliban won't stop until women have no right at all.

[suffragette]

51. + 1,000

[RetiredTrotskyite]

116. That Is EXACTLY What the Wingnuts Are Aiming For

They won't be happy until women have no rights at all. I suggest reading "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. It lays out their sick vision for this country.

[xchrom]

17. it doesn't matter if this gets struck down -- the nut wads that a bill like this

is intended for are getting the message.

and they are 'hearing' it correctly -- go kill abortion providers.

[snappyturtle]

23. Yes. It's a dog whistle. nt

[orbitalman]

18. How LOW can THEY sink?? n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

19. I presume they mean by stoning them publicly in the town square.

:sarcasm:

Sick bastards running that state, uh-huh.

[Scottybeamer70]

20. The fact

that a law such as this one is even being considered, shows just how out of control too many politians are these days.
They really are pushing us to "walk like an Egyptian", aren't they? WOW.....unbelievable. Their ignorance and arrogance
is just staggering!

[madmax]

21. Since 2000k I've had a gut feeling about us

we're headed to fascism. This is fucking insanity!

As another posted 'what's next - honor killings?' :argh:

[EnviroBat]

31. Sadly...

We are already there. The sheep just haven't realized it yet.

[madmax]

73. Yes, I think you're right.

A bit more subtle than Germany but, here - now.

[Shining Jack]

24. When I think that I've seen everything...

:(

[LynneSin]

25. You have GOT to be kidding me

These people are SICK!

[AsahinaKimi]

26. legalizing Murder ?

Just wow..are they nucking futz?

[raccoon]

27. It's official: this country has gone insane. Recd. nt

[barbtries]

28. just when i thought i couldn't be shocked

this dropped my jaw to the floor

[AzDar]

30. Jeezus wept.

:kick:

[L. Coyote]

32. Someone get this Republican self-immolation on film please, for the 2012 campaign

This is a prime example of how a few vocal idiots with one small match can burn down the whole party.

[newtothegame]

34. What's the current law? A pregnant mother can't kill in defense of their unborn?

I don't like that either.

These lawmakers need to find a healthy halfway point that gives a pregnant mother the right to defend herself against attack, but doesn't hold legal abortion providers liable as murderers.

ed for sp

[whopis01]

66. This law doesn't hold abortion providers liable as murderers.

All it does is state that if a woman uses force or deadly force to prevent harm to her unborn child. The law only applies to acts committed by the pregnant woman herself and she has to reasonably believe that there is a threat to her unborn child and that force is needed to prevent harm to the unborn child.

[newtothegame]

90. So the OP and accompanying headline are completely misleading. nt

[whopis01]

153. Absolutely n/t

[LiberalEsto]

36. What the HELL?

Next thing, it will be okay to murder someone if they vote for the political party you don't agree with.

IMHO the reason for this new avalanche of anti-abortion legislation has one main purpose - to distract Americans from the continued destruction of the middle class and the wholesale looting of our pockets by the rich/corporations.

[Buenaventura]

37. this is pro-life?

[tpsbmam]

75. Yep. Pro-life Rethug style. It totally amazes me that people who believe this

crap are so fucking stupid that they can't see how twisted they and their leaders are. Fight to the death to prevent abortions, god forbid their precious little ones are exposed to SEX talk with the aim of educating kids about responsible sex, make it so only the rich can get abortions (if they're smart they'll go to another country), give poor/working/middle classes NO help once the babies are born through the course of their lives, teach them little that's useful or true (science vs. creation), damn straight we need the death penalty......

Yep, that's rethug pro-life.

:puke:

[ndsgn00]

125. Still amazes me...

While conservatives/fundies/lifers will literally fight to the death (someone else's) for the unborn, they don't care at all about them once they're born. Education is savaged, program for underprivileged kids go by the wayside, and we get crap like this instead.

[tpsbmam]

145. Welcome to DU!

Nice first post.

:toast: :hi:

[lunasun]

92. they are probably big on the death penalty too....

but not for a killer of a pro choice provider of course....................

[beac]

98. In Republican Wingnut World, life begins at conception...

and the right to it ends at birth. Once a baby takes its first breath, the GOP doesn't give a crap what happens to it after that. So poverty, sickness, homelessness, murder and the death penalty are all a-okay with them.

[reggie the dog]

39. on the plus side murder in general would become very easy

so we could hunt down and kill off anyone we wanted if they lit a ciggie by a pregnant woman, or drove a car by thus polluting the air and harming the fetus...or any pregnant woman smoking or drinking etc. there will be an explosion of killings with this bill but the murder rate should go way down, then they can say that crime is down

[MattBaggins]

68. Now that's some serious "half full" reasoning

[reggie the dog]

70. i was trying to think like a tea bagger....

my head hurts

[primavera]

40. Can anyone explain to me what the story is with the Dakotas?

It seems like every time we hear about some especially egregious bit of misogynistic legislation being introduced, it's coming from the Dakotas. Maybe that's just the media covering Dakota's anti-choice legislation more than that of other states, but I find myself wondering whether there's something about the demographics of the Dakotas that fuels such rabid bills. Anyne have any thoughts?

[PatrynXX]

41. Um, I suggest that guy be put in jail for inciting murder

Seriously no brains in there... and I like South Dakota. course I like Nebraska too and it's a red state

[still_one]

47. essentially what they are doing is telling people to commit murder, and that is legal? /nt

[defendandprotect]

48. Christian-Taliban in South Dakota?

[santamargarita]

52. Republican Insanity is going unchecked and should be stopped

...by whatever means necessary!

[Paper Roses]

54. I swear this country is going out of its collective mind.

Unbelievable

[The Backlash Cometh]

59. This is in direct violation of federal law.

[Zoeisright]

61. Un-fucking-real.

I'm speechless.

[blackspade]

62. So South Dakota is legalizing honor killings now?

The places for free thinking, freedom loving people to live seems to shrink daily....

[slackmaster]

64. Poorly written, and would not justify killing someone for performing lawful abortions

Killing would be justified only if a crime was in progress, or if a person had a reasonable fear of great bodily injury.

But the bill, brief as it is, is written so poorly that most people wouldn't be able to grasp that fact.

ETA this is obviously a political stunt intended to appease extreme anti-abortionists. I don't believe it would actually justify any actions that are not already justified under SD's laws on self-defense.

[closeupready]

65. Wouldn't that make the state financially liable under federal law if someone then did it?

They might want to think about that, if nothing else.

[SpankMe]

69. Two Americas.

The wingers are winning. Time to move west and create a liberal region of states where real freedom is nurtured.

Separate now.

[AlbertCat]

91. Time to move west

What? To AZ?????

[montanto]

76. We are no longer "going to hell in a handbasket." No.

We've arrived.

[varkam]

80. .....

Wow. Just wow. There are no words that adequately encapsulate the awe-inspiring inanity that is brewing in South Dakota.

[forty6]

81. Anyone who introduced this legislation or sponsors it is in VIOLATION

of the oath they swore to when they took office.

All should be immediately dismissed and charged with the federal crime of incitement of terrorist activities, taken off to GTMO on the next plane out.

[northoftheborder]

82. Good Lord Help Us. This has gone into insanity.

[feslen]

84. Tea Nazi's strike again eh?

glad I don't habitate the "god belt" region...yipes. that's just insane, so what's next, "justifiable homicide of a neighbor for making too much noise law?"

[sharesunited]

85. Is anyone at the clinic a fair target? The receptionist?

[bongbong]

87. Another one!

Another repig jobs bill! I'm really amazed at how many jobs the repigs have created since the election in 2010.

DRIPPING WITH :sarcasm:

[yurbud]

88. so there are no unemployed people, underfunded schools, or anything else to worry about in SD?

[KamaAina]

89. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't these Bible-thumpers understand?

:wtf:

[AlbertCat]

94. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't these Bible-thumpers understand?

They've got that commandment down just as intended. It means "thou shalt not kill.... those in your sphere. Everyone else is fair game." Because in the rest of the book, they kill everyone who moves.

"And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies." I Samuel, 18.25


Ay Yay Yay!

[moobu2]

93. What scumbags. Now

I might could go for making anti-abortion rights protester-stalkers fair game. maybe.

[mistertrickster]

95. What if the abortion MD were a PREGNANT woman? Heh, gocha! nt.

[SoapBox]

96. wow...this is sicker than an abortion...these people are perverted.

[joeglow3]

104. Did you read the bill?

This ONLY covers the pregnant woman, who uses lethal force to protect her unborn fetus from immediate harm. Essentially, it is saying that someone who kills a pregnant lady can get charged with 2 murders. Likewise, a mother does not need to wait until there is a threat to her life before acting. Thus, the only application I can see related to an abortion Doctor is if a woman signs all the releases, goes in for an abortion, gets on the table and then kills the Doctor.

Frankly, a VERY misleading article.

[WatsonT]

115. I hear this happenes all the time

"Thus, the only application I can see related to an abortion Doctor is if a woman signs all the releases, goes in for an abortion, gets on the table and then kills the Doctor."

Like every day.

[BlueIris]

97. Civilization: DOA. nt

[kratos00]

99. The repukes wanna take us back

to the 14th century.

[Initech]

102. To quote Bill Hicks: "we're pro-life and we'll kill your ass!"

[danbee46]

107. My Poor Country

If this passes they should put Charles Manson's head on Mt. Rushmore.

[Marnie]

108. So that means that it is legal to kill the killing baby killers.

But is it legal to kill the baby killer if the baby killer saved the live of the mother, so that she could live to maybe have a normal pregnancy that was not life treating her her and the fetus or maybe even adopt an already born child?

If the mother has a therapeutic abortion to save her life is it ok to kill her after her live was saved. What if she is pregnant again?

[Marnie]

110. "while resisting an attempt to harm"

Strikes me that that would limit the attack to the moments immediately preceding abortion. That language probably exists in the original imminent danger part of the criminal code that allows an attack on person who is placing another person in imminent danger.

I suspect it will be difficult to get that type of language and that intent out of the criminal imminent danger wording without changing the definition of imminent danger for all instance of defense of self or others.

If a separate wording is concocted just for abortions doctors, who both a people and as OB's are, by law, protected from violent attack to the same extent as the fetus, then it will fail under the Constitution's equal protect clause.

The reason Roe v. Wade is so difficult to over turn is that, like most laws, and law suits, it balances the rights of two parties when those right are conflicted, and Roe v. Wade does that very well. The Constitutional rights of both the mother and the fetus are considered and balanced.

[nalnn]

111. Source of my confusion

I was getting confused on the varying opinions and differing wording in the posts here and I looked a little further. It was seeming as though people were reading two different things. They were and I'm just catching on to it.

I am not all that familiar with navigating state legislature web sites so can someone explain this? Why 2(who knows how many more) versions with the same number? What is the House Judiciary Engrossed? And, which of these is most recent?

no1
no2

[JoePhilly]

112. Sounds like the GOP in SD just admited to developing a conspiracy to commit murder.

[RedCloud]

117. What about killing Native Americans and stealing their land?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

118. That is mind-bendingly horrifying.

Their goal is allowing the pregnant woman's husband or parents to decide whether or not she can have an abortion. They can't allow it directly, because the SCOTUS will overturn the law. So they're just making it legal to kill the doctor in an effort to intimidate the woman. This is some fucked up repugnant shit.

[humbled_opinion]

119. I submit...

If we continue to allow government to control us through legislation then we have no one to blame but ourselves....

[AngryOldDem]

120. I did a double-take when I logged on and saw this.

And damn, there's a pro-life site I would LOVE to post this on, just to get the feedback/spin. Unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be), I'm persona non grata there.

This is truly horrendous, and justifies violence against all providers, and by extension the women who need them.

Just how in the holy fuck is this type of legislation PRO-LIFE? Oh yeah, I forgot. It's all about the BAY-BEES.

:mad:

[onehandle]

121. A perfect marriage of gun righters and choose lifers.

The bill addressing justifiable homicide to protect Americans from liberals is getting closer and closer.

[CrossChris]

122. Interesting. So they want a CHOICE over whether or not they can kill those doctors, while...

others want to PROtect the LIFE of the doctors.

[katty]

126. right, they want an "OK to Murder" -- sick f****!

[CrossChris]

131. They never cease to amaze. The other day I was joking about their stance on child labor laws

and wouldn't you know it, the next day there was an article about how the GOP was attacking child labor laws. Still, this story trumps that.

Wonder what tomorrow has in store!

[katty]

132. geezus, who knows anymore-the psychotic POV is being

peddled to the public as 'sane'?!!! Like this kind of horrific proposal is 'normal' behavior, a natural outcome of anger and opposition?! I mean what is left to discuss in a sane manner with this crowd--apparently, nothing.

[katty]

123. WHY are these people NOT called out for inciting potential MURDER?

if this not NOT a threat of terrorism, what the hell is??!!!

[slackmaster]

128. I think you just did

:hi:

[katty]

130. i suppose-however, wish this view was discussed front & center

-like so many other issues that need immediate attention.

[craigmatic]

124. And these are the same people afraid of Shria law. This is basically the same thing.

[Spiderzumbie]

127. Because We all know that harming a live person is less murder than a fetus.

Listen, Repubs and Conservatives can practice being "anti-abortion" while using "the all life is the same" act....... That's fine, but murdering a person who performs an abortion? Isn't that sort of NOT pro-life? More.... i dunno, "PRO-MY BELIEFS"?

[Odin2005]

129. What do you expect from the state that has the highest rates of rape in the country?

Mysogynist fucks!

[glinda]

133. Then they will have to shoot the woman who is going for an abortion also.

[BlueIris]

135. Who cares about her? She has a uterus and is choosing not to use it, so she deserves death.

Besides, the splits don't really count anyway.

Wish I didn't need this: :sarcasm:

[sofa king]

134. Insert a rider including election thieves and see where it goes then.

[DesertFlower]

136. what next?

[newtothegame]

138. I've read through this whole thing. The OP's headline is incredibly misleading and irresponsible. n

[Hissyspit]

140. Here's the update they posted:

UPDATE: Jensen spoke to Mother Jones on Tuesday morning, after this story was published. He says that he disagrees with this interpretation of the bill. "This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion." Jensen also aggressively defended the bill in an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent on Tuesday morning. We have more on Jensen's position here.

[cascadiance]

139. And what if you shoot Scot Roeder shooting George Tiller in SD?...

Do you get charged with murder and he gets let off the hook?

Or for that matter, what if another Scot Roeder "escapes" to South Dakota after killing an abortion doctor in another state like Iowa or Minnesota? Is that state able to get South Dakota to turn over Roeder for trial for the murder in their state, or is South Dakota able to say that Scot Roeder can live there free and easy?

This law is so nuts it defies description!

[fascisthunter]

142. then they are insane... legislating right wing religious doctrine

these people make me fucking sick

[Ter]

144. This is why Roe vs. Wade is a terrible law

Let states like SD ban abortion, we're not gonna ever win these states anyway. I'm sorry to all my liberal friends in the state, but there are better options elsewhere.

[provis99]

149. this poses a conundrum...

if it does mean someone can kill an abortion doctor because they threaten a pregnant woman's fetus, what happens if the abortion doctor herself was pregnant? Would that mean it is a justified killing of the doctor, but a murder of the fetus? Any legal experts here?

[rasputin1952]

150. How anyone can attempt to legalize murder is beyond any...

rational thought process.

For all of the talk about "Judeo-Christian" values, both of which have defined "life" as a fetus that is viable outside of the womb, usually at birth, (except for zealots that consider "life" at the moment of conception), you'd think that these people would see that the sanctity of life would encompass all living beings, regardless of age or occupation.

Even attempting to legalize pre-meditated murder is beyond anything I can comprehend for any society.

Watching a portion of society devolve, is not a pretty sight...:(

[Vidar]

152. To paraphrase Judge Roy Bean, some politicians should be hanged, because they need hangin'.