[deadwolfbones]

South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers | Mother Jones

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.

...

The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.

Jensen, the bill's sponsor, has said that he simply intends to bring "consistency" to South Dakota's criminal code, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. But there's a difference between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimes—which is permissible under law in many states—and making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge.

And a response from the bill's sponsor:

South Dakota legislator defends bill to make killing to defend fetuses a "justifiable homicide"

[shooz]

No comments on this?

I guess the key word is "could".
Somewhere in S. Dakota lawyers are drooling.

[larryinlc]

Between this news and the coup d'état happening now in Wisconsin, I cannot find the words except I believe the whole country has gone mad.

No comments on this?
.

[Parallax]

...... I believe the whole country has gone mad.

That pretty well sums it up.
On the news last night one of the supporters said it was not aimed at abortion doctors but at "violent boyfriends and husbands" (not an exact quote). That is absolute BS on two levels. The law presently justifies homicide in the case of "a felony committed on a person" which the boyfriend punching the pregnant woman repeatedly in the abdomen (an example he gave) certainly would be . If it were not aimed a abortion doctors they could easily have included the word "unlawfully", as in "prevent someone from unlawfully causing the death.....)
It is intended purely to intimidate doctors to the point that they will not perform abortions. Currently we have a grand total of one doctor in the state that does elective abortions.

[Ratmagiclady]

This is the insanity I warned about when people were claiming who they wanted elected were just about 'taxes and small government' (itself just a pretext for gutting the government services and programs they don't like, while handing more and more to the super-rich) ...but notice how these people didn't waste a moment once in office to start pursuing a Religious Right agenda, while the country needs to get moving on *real* stuff, not head for the Dark Ages socially.

Somehow a thin majority in the House is supposed to translate into a mandate to crawl back into American bedrooms and womens' bodies?

If they cared about the health of fetuses they'd be pushing for the chemical and pharmaceutical companies to have some kind of liability for the EDCs and other chemicals and pollutants they're exposing everyone to.

What these maneuvers are about is to declare that any pregnancy is a citizen is so that they can give even rapists control of women once there's a 'possible pregnancy' involved. You can see it with their insistence that even contraception, even a hospital rape kit, is 'murder,' and now they want to be able to *do* murder to 'prove' it.
(Note how at the same time they're using this kind of 'unborn citizenship' issue as a pretext to undo rape shield laws, redefine rape and rape victims nearly out of existence, (What, one has to wait for a trial to get treatment in a hospital or make a report without being called a 'possible liar?') It's about control, not about women or babies.

Disgusting.

If they want to make it about assaulting pregnant women, then they could pass laws *about assaulting pregnant women.* They don't have to drive this whole agenda into people's bodies and personal decisions just to 'prove' something.

[Nesster]

... if one were inclined to conspiracy theories, one might even suspect the Republicans since Reagan are part of the Brotherhood/Council of 300/Unilateral Commission/whatever, who stealth-install MMT style fiscal policy - all the while claiming the opposite - and using this to fund their socially regressive policies. It is not far, after all, from some of the far Right social policy views, and the dread Shia law.... Maybe Beck is right, only he's barking at the wrong tree (on purpose! as he's part of the conspiracy!) :0

[borno]

Some things are just wrong, and I'd say killing unborn babies is probably one of them.

[Parallax]

Some things are just wrong, and I'd say killing unborn babies is probably one of them.

Would you also say that legalizing the killing those who perform abortions within the law is wrong as well?

[Nesster]

Some things are just wrong, and I'd say killing unborn babies is probably one of them.

However, if that is the basis for a law, then abortion should be criminalized and subject to the judicial process... this law, as presented, seems to quasi-legalize vigilantes.

[GeneV]

Currently we have a grand total of one doctor in the state that does elective abortions.

I saw on a news cast that he actually does not live in SD, but is flown in several days a week by Planned Parenthood.

I, too, see the genuine moral delimma, but it is a question to me of where the law will interject itself into our most personal lives. Aside from the debate about when life begins, in no other instance do we require that one human being give any part of his or her body--not even blood--to sustain the life of another. Should we call it justifiable to put a gun to someone's head who won't donate blood to keep a living human alive after her surgery? How about killing someone who won't donate a lobe of his liver? Perhaps all women who don't volunteer to have embryos implanted are murderers.

[clmonk]

GeneV makes a great point here. The question about women's rights and fetus rights, and father's tights--put all that aside for a minute and address the only really relevant issue at stake; WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? Our Declaration of Independence declares that all have access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The question has been debated for decades, but if were ever defined BY LAW the whole debate about abortion would cease to exist. The only scientifically logical conclusion is that life begins at conception. If we define death as the cessation of heartbeat and brain wave activity, why is it so strange to define life as the counterpart to these activities. Heartbeat can be detected in the fetus even before most women know they are even pregnant! It is evidence of life. Therefore anyone who purposely stops that heartbeat causes the death of a living being.

[GeneV]

GeneV makes a great point here. The question about women's rights and fetus rights, and father's tights--put all that aside for a minute and address the only really relevant issue at stake; WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? Our Declaration of Independence declares that all have access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The question has been debated for decades, but if were ever defined BY LAW the whole debate about abortion would cease to exist. The only scientifically logical conclusion is that life begins at conception. If we define death as the cessation of heartbeat and brain wave activity, why is it so strange to define life as the counterpart to these activities. Heartbeat can be detected in the fetus even before most women know they are even pregnant! It is evidence of life. Therefore anyone who purposely stops that heartbeat causes the death of a living being.

I appreciate the compliment, but that was the opposite of my point. My point was that even if the blastula/embryo/fetus were a living human, our law does not make any living human give any part of his body to keep another human alive. Only in the case of a mother sustaining an embryo is it ever proposed that the law require one human to give her/his body and blood to another.

[clmonk]

I understand your point, Gene, but once one has engaged in the activity that results in the formation of another life, that life has rights too. To cause the cessation of that life would be criminal. That's what I meant when I wrote that once the law states specifically when life begins, then (and probably only then) does it become moot. Even so, it will be rife with controversy!

[Parallax]

I saw on a news cast that he actually does not live in SD, but is flown in several days a week by Planned Parenthood.

I, too, see the genuine moral delimma, but it is a question to me of where the law will interject itself into our most personal lives. Aside from the debate about when life begins, in no other instance do we require that one human being give any part of his or her body--not even blood--to sustain the life of another. Should we call it justifiable to put a gun to someone's head who won't donate blood to keep a living human alive after her surgery? How about killing someone who won't donate a lobe of his liver? Perhaps all women who don't volunteer to have embryos implanted are murderers.

The people of SD have made it clear that they favor the right to choose. Despite that, the legislators keep trying every way they can think of to nullify the will of the people. We have the only law in the nation that requires a doctor to state to a woman that an abortion will terminate a human life. Except in medical emergencies, the law requires physicians to provide certain information to the woman, including a written statement that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
Moral dilemma, yes; but the legislature and the courts should not be in the business of resolving moral dilemmas. They certainly shouldn't be passing bills that legalize the killing of a human being for performing a lawful act just because they personally find it offensive.

"while resisting an attempt to harm".
Second hand smoke is harmful. The omission of the word "unlawfully" would seem to make it legal for the pregnant woman, or her "spouse, partner, parent, or child" to kill someone smoking a cigarette near her. I realize that is an extreme example, but I am addressing the letter of the law. The deliberate omission of one word makes the spirit and intent of the law crystal clear. It's intended to do an end run around the Constitution and put an end to abortions by putting any provider in fear for his or her life.

[GeneV]

The people of SD have made it clear that they favor the right to choose. Despite that, the legislators keep trying every way they can think of to nullify the will of the people. We have the only law in the nation that requires a doctor to state to a woman that an abortion will terminate a human life. Except in medical emergencies, the law requires physicians to provide certain information to the woman, including a written statement that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
Moral dilemma, yes; but the legislature and the courts should not be in the business of resolving moral dilemmas. They certainly shouldn't be passing bills that legalize the killing of a human being for performing a lawful act just because they personally find it offensive.

"while resisting an attempt to harm".
Second hand smoke is harmful. The omission of the word "unlawfully" would seem to make it legal for the pregnant woman, or her "spouse, partner, parent, or child" to kill someone smoking a cigarette near her. I realize that is an extreme example, but I am addressing the letter of the law. The deliberate omission of one word makes the spirit and intent of the law crystal clear. It's intended to do an end run around the Constitution and put an end to abortions by putting any provider in fear for his or her life.

Thanks for that information, Jim.