S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terrorism

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terrorism

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:34 pm UTC

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02 ... -providers
Spoiler:
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.
ensen 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.
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.

"They always intended this to be a fetal personhood bill, they just tried to cloak it as a self-defense bill," says Kristin Aschenbrenner, a lobbyist for South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women. "They're still trying to cloak it, but they amended it right away, making their intent clear." The major change to the legislation also caught abortion rights advocates off guard. "None of us really felt like we were prepared," she says.

Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University who frequently testifies before Congress about abortion legislation, says the bill is legally dubious. "It takes my breath away," she says in an email to Mother Jones. "Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act."

South Dakota already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and one of the lowest abortion rates. Since 1994, there have been no providers in the state. Planned Parenthood flies a doctor in from out-of-state once a week to see patients at a Sioux Falls clinic. Women from the more remote parts of the large, rural state drive up to six hours to reach this lone clinic. And under state law women are then required to receive counseling and wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure.

Before performing an abortion, a South Dakota doctor must offer the woman the opportunity to view a sonogram. And under a law passed in 2005, doctors are required to read a script meant to discourage women from proceeding with the abortion: "The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Until recently, doctors also had to tell a woman seeking an abortion that she had "an existing relationship with that unborn human being" that was protected under the Constitution and state law and that abortion poses a "known medical risk" and "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." In August 2009, a US District Court Judge threw out those portions of the script, finding them "untruthful and misleading." The state has appealed the decision.

The South Dakota legislature has twice tried to ban abortion outright, but voters rejected the ban at the polls in 2006 and 2008, by a 12-point margin both times. Conservative lawmakers have since been looking to limit access any other way possible. "They seem to be taking an end run around that," says state Sen. Angie Buhl, a Democrat. "They recognize that people don't want a ban, so they are trying to seek a de facto ban by making it essentially impossible to access abortion services."


South Dakota Republicans are now placing themselves fully within the realm and sphere of domestic terrorism. It's not even fucking hyperbole.
Image

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Jessica » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:37 pm UTC

Yeah. I saw that earlier today, and was completely flabbergasted.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Greyarcher » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:41 pm UTC

Awesome--the article provided a link to the bill so I could check the wording.

...Heh, ha ha! Looks like a fair interpretation! So they're trying to make it legal to kill people who perform abortions?

Ha ha ha! I'm glad I developed a black sense of humor, otherwise I would be filled with so much hate.

Edit: Whoops! I read a bit too quickly and glossed over an important part. Maybe it's not that bad after all, as discussed further below.
Last edited by Greyarcher on Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Роберт » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:49 pm UTC

Greyarcher wrote:Awesome--the article provided a link to the bill so I could check the wording.

...Heh, ha ha! Looks like a fair interpretation! So they're trying to make it legal to kill people who perform abortions?

Ha ha ha! I'm glad I developed a black sense of humor, otherwise I would be filled with so much hate.

That is pretty shocking. At least it has to an immediate relative of the fetus, but that doesn't make this bill much less insane. If you want to stop abortions... you just legalize killing people who are attempting to perform one? What on earth?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:55 pm UTC

I sort of want to start a Blackwater-type company that does pro-bono work securing abortion providers.

Here's the thing about this law. It creates a justifiable homicide defense against killing someone undertaking legal action. But if you kill someone who's trying to kill an abortion provider, it's still justifiable homicide under existing law.

This creates a framework where civil war is legal. It won't get held up in the courts, but this is supremely fucked

EDIT:

The fact that this is limited to family doesn't make this even a mote less despicable. Let alone that it's enforcing the notion that a woman's family has more say over her body than she does, all it would take is for some anti-abortion nut to get their sister to make an appointment and then BAM! free murder.
Last edited by EsotericWombat on Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Xeio » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:56 pm UTC

Please someone tell me this is illegal? Please? Please?

Fucking hell, then again I'm not sure it even matters, they're advocating that murder is ok if the victim is a doctor who performs abortions, I... have no words, and it's obviously no rational argument will persuade them.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:57 pm UTC

Just a check, doesn't self defense include attacking someone attacking your spouse already?

As in, there is no possible way to explain this bill except as legalizing killing abortion providers.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:58 pm UTC

Correct. In terms of finding motive for this legislation besides protecting would-be domestic terrorists, there's no "there" there.
Image

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Thesh » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:01 pm UTC

I'm trying to look for another motive so I can play devil's advocate, but I just can't find one.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Not A Raptor
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Not A Raptor » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:02 pm UTC

The Logical Flip:

Spoiler:
A law under consideration in Washington would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent political assassinations—a move that could make it legal to kill conservatives who kill doctors who perform abortions. The Democrat-backed legislation, House Bill 1337, 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 Dem-dominated House of Representatives soon.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. ___ ______, a committed foe of domestic terrorism, 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 primary care provider or representative, or media personality. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow anybody to kill anyone who tried to kill anybody—even if the person wanted to become a martyr.
____ 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 Washington is an invitation to anarchy," says _____ ______, the president of the National Foundation for Sanity, the professional association of sanity providers. Since 1993, eight people have been assassinated at the hands of anti-murder 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," _____ says. The measure could have major implications if a "misguided extremist invokes this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of anybody," the Washington Campaign for Healthy Discourse warned in a message to supporters last week... (etc...)


I have no conception of the mental gymnastics they are using to justify their reasoning. If conservatives are so quick to use violence to get their way, why don't they just declare civil war already (the way some of them even say they want to) and get it the fuck over with.
Van wrote:I like simple games.

Like Wizardry.

WARNING: Is acting like NaR.
Kellsbells: NAR is a sillypants
Not_A_Raptor: :p
Kellsbells: That is my expert assessment

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Triangle_Man » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:05 pm UTC

What the hell is this unbelievable piece of bullshit?

I mean really? Have the really thought of the implications of this bill?

Probably not.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:05 pm UTC

I have no conception of the mental gymnastics they are using to justify their reasoning.


Deontology

Killing is bad, but its okay if they are bad

QED

actually this doesn't make any political sense; as soon as this bill is actually invoked the backlash will be immeasurable.
Last edited by mmmcannibalism on Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:06 pm UTC

They did.

We should let them leave next time.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Not A Raptor
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Not A Raptor » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:07 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:They did.

We should let them leave next time.

They don't simply want to leave this time. They want the rest of us to leave (or die). Big difference.
Van wrote:I like simple games.

Like Wizardry.

WARNING: Is acting like NaR.
Kellsbells: NAR is a sillypants
Not_A_Raptor: :p
Kellsbells: That is my expert assessment

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:34 am UTC
Location: Northwestern Missouri, USA.

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Nova » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:09 pm UTC

What's even sadder is that they've already run all the abortion providers out of the state anyway.
Caffeine, hormones, and a thirst for vengeance.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:12 pm UTC

And this will ensure that no one tries to provide services in the future.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby JBJ » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:15 pm UTC

Since the text of the bill is short (underlined sections are what they are looking to add to the existing statutes)
Spoiler:
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.

With little knowledge of the political climate surrounding abortion in SD, it reads to me as an affirmative defense for killing someone whose actions during a criminal act would result in the unwanted death of a fetus. This is pretty clear in Section 2 as it specifies lawful defense and reasonable ground that a felony is being or is about to be committed. Section 1 is worded a little less responsibly because it doesn't indicate defense during an illegal activity and given what I've read so far about the abortion climate there they should really reconsider that phrasing.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Malice » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

What's next from the GOP? Anti-kitten legislation? The 2011 Tie Women to Train-Tracks Bill?
Image

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Jessica » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:19 pm UTC

Bill 312 - Fuck you Democrats.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:20 pm UTC

So only the mother or father could actually murder the abortionist. Imagine the look on Stereotypical-South-Dakotan-Name's when he finds out he's not the father and goes to jail for life.

AngelfishTitan
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:47 pm UTC
Location: A different post

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby AngelfishTitan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:26 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:Since the text of the bill is short (underlined sections are what they are looking to add to the existing statutes)
Spoiler:
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.

With little knowledge of the political climate surrounding abortion in SD, it reads to me as an affirmative defense for killing someone whose actions during a criminal act would result in the unwanted death of a fetus. This is pretty clear in Section 2 as it specifies lawful defense and reasonable ground that a felony is being or is about to be committed. Section 1 is worded a little less responsibly because it doesn't indicate defense during an illegal activity and given what I've read so far about the abortion climate there they should really reconsider that phrasing.


I agree Section 1 is a little vague, but it doesn't seem to give justification to anyone but the one being attacked. Section 2 would only work that way if abortion was illegal, which it isn't. Still, it's pointless to add that phrasing as how would one murder an unborn child of an unconsenting woman without already harming the woman/doing something illegal anyway?
Belial wrote:Note: this means you should assume that every post I make has the thrumming, furious power of half a bottle of irish whiskey behind it. Yes, even the ones I make from work. ESPECIALLY the ones I make from work.

User avatar
Levi
Posts: 1294
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:12 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Levi » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

It seems like it's only makes it legal if the woman doesn't want the abortion.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Radical_Initiator » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Levi wrote:It seems like it's only makes it legal if the woman doesn't want the abortion.


So there are rogue doctors running amok around Pierre giving abortions for the fun of it?
I looked out across the river today …

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:39 pm UTC

All abortions are for the fun of it. Fun for sluts. Dirty dirty sluts.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:40 pm UTC

Everyone thinks that til they find love
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Greyarcher » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:40 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:Since the text of the bill is short (underlined sections are what they are looking to add to the existing statutes)
Spoiler:
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.

With little knowledge of the political climate surrounding abortion in SD, it reads to me as an affirmative defense for killing someone whose actions during a criminal act would result in the unwanted death of a fetus. This is pretty clear in Section 2 as it specifies lawful defense and reasonable ground that a felony is being or is about to be committed. Section 1 is worded a little less responsibly because it doesn't indicate defense during an illegal activity and given what I've read so far about the abortion climate there they should really reconsider that phrasing.
Good point about Section 2. I read too fast and missed the "if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony" part.

So random people cannot justifiably kill abortion providers, because I don't think killing an unborn child has been classed as a felony. But that's the next logical step.

But as you say, Section 1 is a bit less responsible and doesn't have that part. But I'm not sure how that could be abused: a pregnant pro-lifer setting up an abortion, and then killing the provider? I don't think that would make any sense or work in court.

Instead, it looks like people are now allowed to use lethal force if a pregnant woman is assaulted and they're worried about the unborn kid dying.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby broken_escalator » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:43 pm UTC

AngelfishTitan wrote:Still, it's pointless to add that phrasing as how would one murder an unborn child of an unconsenting woman without already harming the woman/doing something illegal anyway?

This is my understanding as well. At best this wording is unnecessary. At worst it is pretty fucked up.

Are they still posturing or are they really trying to pass this kind of stuff?

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby podbaydoor » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:46 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
Levi wrote:It seems like it's only makes it legal if the woman doesn't want the abortion.


So there are rogue doctors running amok around Pierre giving abortions for the fun of it?

The supporters of this bill aren't really claiming this, I don't think.

Mental gymnastics aren't the point. It's actually in the linked article. Voters already rejected an outright ban on abortion twice. So to get around it, they have to make an end run around the voters. Two ways: create a chilling effect, and make everybody run a gauntlet. They merely need to set up enough legal barriers that women give up on getting abortions because it's not worth the effort anymore. It doesn't matter how tortured the "logic" is, in fact some of them probably know how tortured it is, all they need is to get enough barriers in place.

On the doctor side, all they need to do is create a chilling effect on the women's health environment in the state and doctors will voluntarily leave or refuse to do abortions on their own. End run achieved.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Роберт » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:47 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:Since the text of the bill is short (underlined sections are what they are looking to add to the existing statutes)
Spoiler:
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.

With little knowledge of the political climate surrounding abortion in SD, it reads to me as an affirmative defense for killing someone whose actions during a criminal act would result in the unwanted death of a fetus. This is pretty clear in Section 2 as it specifies lawful defense and reasonable ground that a felony is being or is about to be committed. Section 1 is worded a little less responsibly because it doesn't indicate defense during an illegal activity and given what I've read so far about the abortion climate there they should really reconsider that phrasing.

I hope that was the bills intent and they fix the phrasing.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:47 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure section 2 says the father of the unborn child can murder the abortionist, even if the mother wants and has consented to an abortion.

User avatar
iChef
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:33 pm UTC
Location: About 5 cm. south of the ring finger, USA.

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby iChef » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:49 pm UTC

"Blackwater" style defense companies are already all over the place to protect people who are performing illegal activities. Not that I've ever hired one while owning a company that performed illegal activities *wink wink nudge nudge say no more". They are really quite effective, but hard to contact and vet properly and they are quite expensive. I don't see how this bill could possibly pass, and if it does couldn't the murderer just be brought up on federal terrorism charges.
Those whom God loves, he must make beautiful, and a beautiful character must, in some way, suffer.
-Tailsteak author of the Webcomics 1/0 and Leftover Soup

AngelfishTitan
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:47 pm UTC
Location: A different post

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby AngelfishTitan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:57 pm UTC

Yea, they do need to fix the phrasing (aka keep it how it was), and rereading it, the "or to do some great personal injury" in the second part can cause some bad reasoning from people who already want to murder abortion doctors. It's just pointless to add if it isn't changing anything and dangerous if it is.
Belial wrote:Note: this means you should assume that every post I make has the thrumming, furious power of half a bottle of irish whiskey behind it. Yes, even the ones I make from work. ESPECIALLY the ones I make from work.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Greyarcher » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:59 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:I'm pretty sure section 2 says the father of the unborn child can murder the abortionist, even if the mother wants and has consented to an abortion.
I think it depends if harming the unborn child is a felony. I believe it means anyone can justifiablly kill "someone" if:
1. it is defending an unborn child
AND EITHER
2a. "someone" is planning to commit a felony
OR
2b. "someone" is planning to commit a great personal injury and will soon accomplish that.

....waaaait. Am I misreading that again? Maybe you're right. The "apprehend a design" bit confused me for a bit.

Alright, I should sit back and re-read that again later. Seems I'm bouncing back and forth between conclusions.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby mike-l » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:38 pm UTC

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.


Certainly seems to me like it's legalizing a father killing a doctor performing an abortion. Note that all the non-bolded parts have an 'or' with the bolded parts. Unless you are suggesting that an abortion doesn't qualify as doing great personal injury to an unborn child.

Also note that it says unborn child of any such enumerated person, and one such enumerated person is child, so a Father/(Grandfather of the unborn child) could commit such an act as well. Also... why is servant listed?
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:45 pm UTC

I don't think that there's any language suggesting that the conditions in both sections one and two have to be met.

You can commit homicide in situation X.
You can commit homicide in situation Y.

That seems like X OR Y not X AND Y.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby JBJ » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:47 pm UTC

Don't read into the punctuation:

SDC 1939, § 65.0202 (6). wrote: 2-14-8. Punctuation not controlling. Punctuation shall not control or affect the construction of any provision when any construction based on such punctuation would not conform to the spirit and purpose of such provision.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby mike-l » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:49 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:Don't read into the punctuation:

SDC 1939, § 65.0202 (6). wrote: 2-14-8. Punctuation not controlling. Punctuation shall not control or affect the construction of any provision when any construction based on such punctuation would not conform to the spirit and purpose of such provision.


Are you suggesting that the word 'or' is punctuation?
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:52 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:
JBJ wrote:Don't read into the punctuation:

SDC 1939, § 65.0202 (6). wrote: 2-14-8. Punctuation not controlling. Punctuation shall not control or affect the construction of any provision when any construction based on such punctuation would not conform to the spirit and purpose of such provision.


Are you suggesting that the word 'or' is punctuation?


I think he's suggesting that I'm exploiting punctuation. But I'm not. I'm recognizing that each situation is put in a separate clause.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Spambot5546 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Y'know there have been laws introduced in the past that made it more illegal to commit assault against a pregnant woman than against another person, because of the potential harm to the fetus. Given that precedent, this bill seems reasonable.

Or would, if it weren't being introduced by anti-abortion whackos.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:13 pm UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:Y'know there have been laws introduced in the past that made it more illegal to commit assault against a pregnant woman than against another person, because of the potential harm to the fetus. Given that precedent, this bill seems reasonable.

Or would, if it weren't being introduced by anti-abortion whackos.


It's really not the same. I might be willing to concede that fetus + woman > woman, in the cases of murder, but I most certainly will not agree that potential_fetus > human.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests