South Dakota moves to make the murder of "abortion doctors" justifiable homcide.

Since any avenue to overturn Roe v. Wade is out of the question, conservatives have decided to use the back door to erode abortion rights. This is just the logical next step.

Text of the bill.

Should this law pass forced-birthers would be able to claim that murdering an OB/GYN who provides abortion care is justifiable. There have been no providers operating in SD since 1994, and this is the state with the honor of having the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

Quelle fucking shock.

ETA: This bill would also make it far easier for an abusive husband to force his wife to carry a pregnancy to term; it would put control of a woman's reproduction in the hands of the state or her husband. So, if a man strangles/assaults his wife and claims she was trying to harm the fetus, he could claim it was justifiable and he may be immune from prosecution.

They're against abortion, and to help the cause they come up with a law that basically justifies the murder of a fetus and its mother. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Please tell me they're going for a bait-and-switch, because there's nothing even remotely sensible about all this.

I am ashamed to say that I live in SD and that this is not surprising in the least. For years the state has been trying to deny women their right to terminate a pregnancy. This is just the latest attempt to do so. It doesn't matter that the voters have twice voted down more restrictive laws against abortion.

Ah, I was going to post about this if someone else didn't. Bravo!

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

ETA: This bill would also make it far easier for an abusive husband to force his wife to carry a pregnancy to term; it would put control of a woman's reproduction in the hands of the state or her husband. So, if a man strangles/assaults his wife and claims she was trying to harm the fetus, he could claim it was justifiable and he may be immune from prosecution.

I'm...not sure I buy this. I mean, a man technically could do this but if he goes too far and it can be proven that, say, the woman's wounds killed the fetus (or if he kills the woman, which, in turn, kills the fetus) then he's up for far greater charges than he would be normally; domestic assault becomes murder, and murder becomes double. I don't know, this is a possible outcome of the law but I don't see it as a terribly likely one, simply because if it is passed the consequences are amped up for all parties. Then again, abusive husbands are not exactly known to be the most logical types, so you might be right.

Lembech wrote:

They're against abortion, and to help the cause they come up with a law that basically justifies the murder of a fetus and its mother

What? If this law was enacted and someone killed a pregnant woman they'd be up for double murder. Where's the justification? Because I'm not seeing it. No, really, please, elaborate, because I feel like you could have a valid point I'm just completely missing.

Not that I'm saying this law isn't completely fucked up and wrong, just not in the ways you're saying. It's an obvious right-wing scare tactic to frighten people who would otherwise provide abortions into clamming up by making it legal to murder them. That's why this is fucked up. Because if passed it makes the murder of innocent citizens (doctors, even) legal.

TheHedonist wrote:

Ah, I was going to post about this if someone else didn't. Bravo!

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

ETA: This bill would also make it far easier for an abusive husband to force his wife to carry a pregnancy to term; it would put control of a woman's reproduction in the hands of the state or her husband. So, if a man strangles/assaults his wife and claims she was trying to harm the fetus, he could claim it was justifiable and he may be immune from prosecution.

I'm...not sure I buy this. I mean, a man technically could do this but if he goes too far and it can be proven that, say, the woman's wounds killed the fetus (or if he kills the woman, which, in turn, kills the fetus) then he's up for far greater charges than he would be normally; domestic assault becomes murder, and murder becomes double. I don't know, this is a possible outcome of the law but I don't see it as a terribly likely one, simply because if it is passed the consequences are amped up for all parties. Then again, abusive husbands are not exactly known to be the most logical types, so you might be right.

You're right in that his harming the pregnant woman would not merit a justifiable homicide defense. However, if he claimed that he harmed the woman in the course of preventing her from harming the fetus, then he could claim it was justifiable. Doesn't mean he'll prevail, it just means he can use it as a defense. Which is fucking disgusting.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

You're right in that his harming the pregnant woman would not merit a justifiable homicide defense. However, if he claimed that he harmed the woman in the course of preventing her from harming the fetus, then he could claim it was justifiable. Doesn't mean he'll prevail, it just means he can use it as a defense. Which is fucking disgusting.

Hm, okay. Fair enough. It does paint a bit of a target on pregnant women if you want to get away with hurting/coercing them. I'm not convinced it would happen all that often but I can agree that it sets a pretty awful standard, yeah.

TheHedonist wrote:

Lembech wrote:

They're against abortion, and to help the cause they come up with a law that basically justifies the murder of a fetus and its mother

What? If this law was enacted and someone killed a pregnant woman they'd be up for double murder. Where's the justification? Because I'm not seeing it. No, really, please, elaborate, because I feel like you could have a valid point I'm just completely missing.

Not that I'm saying this law isn't completely fucked up and wrong, just not in the ways you're saying. It's an obvious right-wing scare tactic to frighten people who would otherwise provide abortions into clamming up by making it legal to murder them. That's why this is fucked up. Because if passed it makes the murder of innocent citizens (doctors, even) legal.

That's exactly what I was getting at, I was just being sarcastic. From their standpoint, this whole thing is counter-productive as all hells and I can't fathom why they would even come up with something like this.

Why does it not surprise me that the state stupid enough to try this is South Dakota?

They really don't give up, do they?

Ignoring the humongous Supremacy Clause problem, the proposed language is vague and would result in inconsistent, arbitrary and capricious punishment (Fifth Amendment). Not to mention it stretches the definition of "justifiable homicide" well past the breaking point.

And of course they say it doesn't apply to abortion because abortion is legal (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Too bad their own language doesn't support that argument.

It also begs the question of how, exactly, abortion is defined. My brother-in-law almost died at birth because his mother's doctor believed C-section was abortion. Would it be justifiable homicide to kill doctors who perform C-sections?

Lady Anne wrote:

his mother's doctor believed C-section was abortion.

Please tell me his opinion was more complicated than just that... If not, how the fuck do these people get to practice?

Lembech wrote:

That's exactly what I was getting at, I was just being sarcastic. From their standpoint, this whole thing is counter-productive as all hells and I can't fathom why they would even come up with something like this.

Ah, okay, my mistake.

Lady Anne wrote:

Why does it not surprise me that the state stupid enough to try this is South Dakota?

Because it's South Dakota. Trust me. No matter how bizarre you think it is here, it's worse.

WD40 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

his mother's doctor believed C-section was abortion.

Please tell me his opinion was more complicated than just that... If not, how the fuck do these people get to practice?

So... if the kid gets stuck or some other medical condition comes up he would just scratch his head and chalk it up to bad luck?

I'm dead set against abortion used as birth control and would love it if PP put mothers in touch with Adoption agencies, but this is going so far they came back where they started. I imagine SD as having gone so full circle it ended up with it's whole upper body up it's own butt.

The Gov. of Texas just pushed through a bill that makes doctors show the mother an ultrasound and makes her listen to the heart beat before an abortion is preformed. My one question... what if terminating the pregnancy were all that stood between the mother and certain death? Shame on her for having an unforeseen complication? Please to be explaining how that conversation would go.

Braigwen wrote:

what if terminating the pregnancy were all that stood between the mother and certain death? Shame on her for having an unforeseen complication? Please to be explaining how that conversation would go.

This happened to my mother. While this was quite some time ago, I imagine it would go down much the same way. She was on chemo for lung cancer. Birth control methods failed and she became pregnant. The doctor went on and on about how OMG NOT TEH BAYYYBEEE. He didn't stop until a nurse dragged his ass out of the room to tell him to STFU.




My mother desperately wanted more kids.

For once, the idiots in Pierre made a sane decision.

Quote :

PIERRE -- A bill which critics said could encourage people to kill abortion doctors has been rejected by the South Dakota House.

The measure sought to expand South Dakota's definition of justifiable homicide to include killings that protect unborn children. Opponents have said it might allow someone to claim self-defense for killing abortion doctors and other staff at abortion clinics.

The bill's main sponsor, Rep. Phil Jensen of Rapid City, spoke briefly on the House floor Thursday to say he merely wanted to make sure pregnant women could legally use force to protect their unborn babies against attack. But he says he is now satisfied existing law does that.

The House then voted 61-4 to kill the bill.

The bill died just hours after the governor said he could not support it.

61-4. That's somewhat encouraging considering all the anti-choice bills being proposed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

UPDATE, 12:43 p.m.: Jensen tells me he is considering the following change to the language of the proposal (the new part is in bold):

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 that is unlawful and 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.

That would make it clear that "justifiable homicide" can only apply in response to an unlawful act, which would obviously not include abortion, which is legal.

Braigwen wrote:

I'm dead set against abortion used as birth control and would love it if PP put mothers in touch with Adoption agencies, but this is going so far they came back where they started.

You do know that adoption is not a magical system where all unwanted children are snatched up like brownies on free brownie day, right?

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Braigwen wrote:

I'm dead set against abortion used as birth control and would love it if PP put mothers in touch with Adoption agencies, but this is going so far they came back where they started.

You do know that adoption is not a magical system where all unwanted children are snatched up like brownies on free brownie day, right?

Also, they already do that. Planned Parenthood isn't a One Solution kind of place. They lay out your options (Keeping the baby, private adoption, public adoption, abortion) and tell you how each one will have to be done (Funds, paperwork, check-ups), and try to help you decide based on your circumstances and own feelings. A lot of people who end up Surprise!Pregnant don't know what they want to do, and are often torn between the choices. One of the reasons PP exists is to offer you your options and help you understand them so that everyone can make the right choice for themselves.

Lapin wrote:

One of the reasons PP exists is to offer you your options and help you understand them so that everyone can make the right choice for themselves.

You meant they're there to help you plan how or whether to be a parent? How charmingly non-Orwellian.

Selenite wrote:

61-4. That's somewhat encouraging considering all the anti-choice bills being proposed.

Not really. The ones who voted to kill it are saving their political hides by acting like they "saw the light". They still support it, but it became too toxic for them in the public square.

The 4 "hardcases" are probably either retiring at the end of term, or are in "safe" seats where even if Jesus Christ were running against them they'd still win.

I found this on MoveOn.org:

Quote :

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

We've snarked this one here. Somehow, I'm not surprised that these yoyos still want to redefine rape. I have to wonder, though, if they would be so quick to redefine it if it happened to one of them.

Quote :

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

That is just fucked up. A victim is a victim. A crime is a crime. I wonder if they would still use the term "accuser" if the victim was a man?

Quote :

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

My brother-in-law, who grew up in South Dakota, says this sounds about typical for his home state--which goes a long way toward showing why he prefers California.

Quote :

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

The unborn are sacred. The born are on their own.

Quote :

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

'Cause we all know that if a pregnant woman dies, it'll save the baby. Oh, wait...

Quote :

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

Try to find the logic here. I dare you.

Quote :

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

But...but that would force their mothers to stay home and take care of them instead of working! Then the kids'll grow up better. After all, what kid needs the things a working mom can bring them? Food, shelter...the poor are so frivolous!

Quote :

8.) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

Those greedy old people all need to go out and get jobs! What that's you say? People tend to grow frail in old age? Well, they shouldn't have gotten old without being rich!

Quote :

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

Doncha know? All Planned Parenthood does is kill cute baybees, cackling evilly all the time. What do you mean they provide condoms and other contraceptives? All those immoral people who like sex should just live with the consequences!

Quote :

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

Birth control is immoral! Every sperm is sacred! (Unless it happens to be ejaculated by a wild horse.)

What I find pretty stupid is that those people are all for protecting the unwanted fetuses, but at the same time want to cut help for the people who'll take care of the babies after they're born.