South Dakota to legalize killing doctors.

[SirNitram]

Link

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.

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's legislature is strongly tilted against abortion rights, which makes passing restrictions fairly easy. Just 19 of 70 House members and 5 of the 35 state senators are Democrats—and many of the Democrats also oppose abortion rights.

The law that would legalize killing abortion providers is just one of several measures under consideration in the state that would create more obstacles for a woman seeking an abortion. Another proposed law, House Bill 1217, would force women to undergo counseling at a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) before they can obtain an abortion. CPCs are not regulated and are generally run by anti-abortion Christian groups and staffed by volunteers—not doctors or nurses—with the goal of discouraging women from having abortions.

A congressional investigation into CPCs in 2006 found that the centers often provide "false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion"—alleging ties between abortion and breast cancer, negative impacts on fertility, and mental-health concerns. "This may advance the mission of the pregnancy resource centers, which are typically pro-life organizations dedicated to preventing abortion," the report concluded, "but it is an inappropriate public health practice." In a recent interview, state Rep. Roger Hunt, one of the bill's sponsors, acknowledged that its intent is to "drastically reduce" the number of abortions in South Dakota.

House Bill 1217 would also require women to wait 72 hours after counseling before they can go forward with the abortion, and would require the doctor to develop an analysis of "risk factors associated with abortion" for each woman—a provision that critics contend is intentionally vague and could expose providers to lawsuits. A similar measure passed in Nebraska last spring, but a federal judge threw it out it last July, arguing that it would "require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients" and would create "substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles" to women who want abortions. Extending the wait time and requiring a woman to consult first with the doctor, then with the CPC, and then meet with the doctor again before she can undergo the procedure would add additional burdens for women—especially for women who work or who already have children.

The South Dakota bills reflect a broader national strategy on the part of abortion-rights opponents, says Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, a federal reproductive health advocacy and research group. "They erect a legal barrier, another, and another," says Nash. "At what point do women say, 'I can't climb that mountain'? This is where we're getting to."

Legalizing domestic terrorism. Lovely.

[FSTargetDrone]

Wouldn't be surprised to see the women themselves being prosecuted for having an abortion performed. One could also imagine someone interpreting her seeking an abortion as a situation where she is complicit in the act of fetal murder and thus equally deserving of such a "justifiable homicide."

[Thanas]

The people who firebomb clinics do not care about whether patients are present, really.

[Simon_Jester]

Wouldn't be surprised to see the women themselves being prosecuted for having an abortion performed. One could also imagine someone interpreting her seeking an abortion as a situation where she is complicit in the act of fetal murder and thus equally deserving of such a "justifiable homicide."

At that point, the appeals would run headlong into Roe v. Wade, so no.

Scare rhetoric aside, the anti-abortion movement has been fairly savvy about this.

On the one hand, ramp up the pressure from the fringe types (the bombers, the more avid of the protesters) to make being involved with abortions dangerous, intimidating, and as miserable as possible- hence the requirement for 'counseling' by groups whose entire purpose is to convince women not to have abortions, whether that involves telling the truth or not.

On the other hand, pursue scrupulously legal means of undermining the ability of providers to perform abortions- inspection regimes*, parental/judicial consent requirements, and so forth, at the constitutional level.

The object of the exercise here is to undermine Roe v. Wade to the point of complete irrelevance, since they can't really count on getting it overturned. And to keep going to the point where "you have a right to an abortion" becomes equivalent to "you have a right to stage parties on your yacht;" you don't have the means to exercise the right, so the fact that you could exercise it if you had the means is irrelevant.

The one thing that is not done is direct challenges to Roe v. Wade, things that an appeals court can look at and say "Nope, this contradicts the Supreme Court ruling stating that the right to an abortion is a subset of the right to privacy, and that by direct implication abortions are not illegal and cannot be outlawed, any more than political speech can be outlawed."

South Dakota in particular has pursued this strategy very far, until abortions are nearly unavailable in the state as it stands. They are not stupid enough to charge a woman with fetal murder and risk undoing all that.
_________

*It should be noted that there should, no, must be an inspection regime for abortion clinics, or any other facility that performs medical procedures... but the system can certainly be used in bad faith by people who want to use it that way.

[General Mung Beans]

The intent of the bill is misunderstood http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... efend.html:

Jensen insisted that the bill's primary goal is to bring "consistency" to South Dakota criminal code, which already allows people who commit crimes that result in the death of fetuses to be charged with manslaughter. The new measure expands the state's definition of "justifiable homicide" by adding a clause applying it to someone who is "resisting any attempt" to murder of an unborn child or to harm an unborn child in a way likely to result in its death.

When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn't abortion providers, he provided the following example:

"Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."

Pushed on whether the new measure could inflame the unhinged to kill abortion doctors, as some critics allege, Jensen scoffed. "You can fantasize all you want, but this is pretty clear cut," he said. "Never say never, but if some loony did what you're suggesting, then this law wouldn't apply to them. It wouldn't be justifiable homicide."

[Zaune]

The intent of the bill is misunderstood http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... efend.html

Is preventing someone from committing an act of violence not already covered under South Dakota law on justifiable homicide, or is he just a really bad liar?

[Sea Skimmer]

Is preventing someone from committing an act of violence not already covered under South Dakota law on justifiable homicide, or is he just a really bad liar?

Well preventing an act of violence is not a free license to kill. Normally the law only allows for proportional response to aggression, that’s pretty broad in general, but if you kill someone in self defense it has to be because you thought your life was being mortally threatened. Justification then becomes highly sensitive to the situation, all the more so since killing someone to defend another person is always very questionable in the legal sense, and this law would act to clarify one range of questionable situations. I really see nothing wrong or likely redundant with it, assuming accept what this guy Jensen is saying is the honest intent of the law and it is written in a proper manner. It might not be, but its not really a bad lie if it is one. I think we need the full and exact text of the bill to judge it further in any case.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The intent of the bill is misunderstood http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... efend.html:

Jensen insisted that the bill's primary goal is to bring "consistency" to South Dakota criminal code, which already allows people who commit crimes that result in the death of fetuses to be charged with manslaughter. The new measure expands the state's definition of "justifiable homicide" by adding a clause applying it to someone who is "resisting any attempt" to murder of an unborn child or to harm an unborn child in a way likely to result in its death.

When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn't abortion providers, he provided the following example:

"Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."

Pushed on whether the new measure could inflame the unhinged to kill abortion doctors, as some critics allege, Jensen scoffed. "You can fantasize all you want, but this is pretty clear cut," he said. "Never say never, but if some loony did what you're suggesting, then this law wouldn't apply to them. It wouldn't be justifiable homicide."

Really, because the actual text of the bill says different.

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.

Either they have no copy editor at all, or... um... yeah they are lying to the washington post.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The intent of the bill is misunderstood http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... efend.html:

Jensen insisted that the bill's primary goal is to bring "consistency" to South Dakota criminal code, which already allows people who commit crimes that result in the death of fetuses to be charged with manslaughter. The new measure expands the state's definition of "justifiable homicide" by adding a clause applying it to someone who is "resisting any attempt" to murder of an unborn child or to harm an unborn child in a way likely to result in its death.

When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn't abortion providers, he provided the following example:

"Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."

Pushed on whether the new measure could inflame the unhinged to kill abortion doctors, as some critics allege, Jensen scoffed. "You can fantasize all you want, but this is pretty clear cut," he said. "Never say never, but if some loony did what you're suggesting, then this law wouldn't apply to them. It wouldn't be justifiable homicide."

This is a reprehensible, steaming turd of a bill; and shame on you for defending it.

As Alyrium Denryle points out, the actual text of the bill says the following:

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.

Nowhere in the text of the bill does it offer any protection against the medical professionals needed to perform the abortion. If Fundamentalist Frankie Hatfucker goes into an abortion clinic and empties his shotgun into the doctor and his nurses; this law would consider the killing fully justified, so long as his victims were preparing to perform an abortion. Granted, the law does establish the requirement for some sort of association between the would-be murderer and the unborn child he is trying to protect . . . but there's so many categories of valid association that one could argue that their religious beliefs demand that they serve the interests of an unborn child in preventing its abortion.

Hell, Fundamentalist Frankie could hire (or outright conspire with) a pregnant woman to serve as his mistress, or his maid and then send her into an abortion clinic to convince the medical staff that she'd like an abortion to entrap them into being filled with lead. The vagueness of the association between would-be abortion victim, and would-be rescuer specified in the bill is such that it's almost inviting this sort of action to be taken.

[Jaevric]

The example used seems pretty ridiculous, anyway; if a guy is beating up his pregnant girlfriend woudn't she be justified in defending herself anyway? Maybe I'm confused but if a woman is getting the shit beaten out of her by her boyfriend/spouse/whatever and she shoots the bastard, that seems like self-defense to me, which is already legal. What are they going to do, argue in court that "He wasn't trying to beat her to death, he was just trying to beat her badly enough that she'd miscarry."

I can't imagine prosecuting a woman, pregnant or not, for shooting a man who is actively physically assaulting her. It seems that either they're trying to pass a really pointless and poorly-worded law or the intent isn't what they're claiming.

[Serafina]

The example used seems pretty ridiculous, anyway; if a guy is beating up his pregnant girlfriend woudn't she be justified in defending herself anyway? Maybe I'm confused but if a woman is getting the shit beaten out of her by her boyfriend/spouse/whatever and she shoots the bastard, that seems like self-defense to me, which is already legal. What are they going to do, argue in court that "He wasn't trying to beat her to death, he was just trying to beat her badly enough that she'd miscarry."

I can't imagine prosecuting a woman, pregnant or not, for shooting a man who is actively physically assaulting her. It seems that either they're trying to pass a really pointless and poorly-worded law or the intent isn't what they're claiming.

Well, the argumentation seems to be "her killing him is justified, since a life was at stake" - of course, that assumes that the womens life would NOT be at stake when she get's beaten that badly that she miscarries. Which is blatantly wrong, injuries bad enough to induce a miscarriage can easily be life-threatening as well.
So yes, you are right, the example is pretty ridiculous.

The wrong part (and it is really just plain WRONG) is this

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.

Under this, a woman can effectively NOT go to any doctor to have an abortion. She could fill out a thousand forms that say she wants that abortion, you could get a lawyer as a witness and so on - and her husband or father could still blow the doctors head off if he wanted to. This is PURELY designed to scare doctors, even if we ignore the very vague wording (what the hell are "master, mistress, servant" supposed to mean anyway?).
Effectively, it makes abortion a felony even if the woman in question agrees to it.

[TheHammer]

(what the hell are "master, mistress, servant" supposed to mean anyway?).

Master and Mistress I take to mean anyone who has servants, and servants being their counterparts. Essentially, if you have a cook, maid, butler, driver etc. they would have a relationship allowing them "justifiable homicide" if acting under this law.

That being said, as others have asserted the law itself should be entirely uneccessary other than as a means of intimidation to abortion health care professionals. As noted before, anyone seeking to cause harm to a fetus resulting in death will likely do the same to the mother, and thus no addendum to the current law is needed. The only exception being a physician trained to do the former and not the later.

[General Mung Beans]

You don't seem to consider that the bill might just be poorly worded? If it is a bill is intended to excuse the killing of abortion doctors then the bill will almost certainly not pass the legislature. As for me I don't support the bill as it stands-I am showing what the authors of the bill are saying.

[Mr Bean]

You don't seem to consider that the bill might just be poorly worded? If it is a bill is intended to excuse the killing of abortion doctors then the bill will almost certainly not pass the legislature. As for me I don't support the bill as it stands-I am showing what the authors of the bill are saying.

Here's the thing General Mung Beans
Either this is a bill that makes something legal which is that in essence a hunting season on abortion doctors

Or it's a duplication of existing legislation that serves no purpose.
Legally I can already kill you if you are trying to kill me or someone else under my protection. The fetus is a non-issue since I'm already legally allowed to defend the adult human female carrying the thing around.

Either the bills author is a fool who is wasting the time of his state's legislator.
Or he's an anti-aborting extremists who wants to justify murder using language identical to Dr George Tiller's murderer.

[General Mung Beans]

You don't seem to consider that the bill might just be poorly worded? If it is a bill is intended to excuse the killing of abortion doctors then the bill will almost certainly not pass the legislature. As for me I don't support the bill as it stands-I am showing what the authors of the bill are saying.

Here's the thing General Mung Beans
Either this is a bill that makes something legal which is that in essence a hunting season on abortion doctors

Or it's a duplication of existing legislation that serves no purpose.
Legally I can already kill you if you are trying to kill me or someone else under my protection. The fetus is a non-issue since I'm already legally allowed to defend the adult human female carrying the thing around.

Either the bills author is a fool who is wasting the time of his state's legislator.
Or he's an anti-aborting extremists who wants to justify murder using language identical to Dr George Tiller's murderer.

I largely agree with this although it doesn't mean that the author is a fool-he may just want to attract conservative votes. He is also advocating a bill against Sharia law if that may indicate anything.

[Mr Bean]

I largely agree with this although it doesn't mean that the author is a fool-he may just want to attract conservative votes. He is also advocating a bill against Sharia law if that may indicate anything.

He's never read the Constitution is what that bill tells us. Or at least he's not read up to the first amendment.

[Mr. Coffee]

So does this mean I should start offering services to SD Abortion Clinis as a "Nurse" and bring all of my firearms so I can kill these dumb fucks legally? Seriously, look at the law, I can be a "nurse" and kill ever motherfucker that looks at this place wrong now...

[Gil Hamilton]

Were I pro-life, I'd be opposed to this because if this passed and some yahoo shoots up an abortion clinic as justifiable homocide, the pro-life movement will have to put its money where its mouth is on the issue. They can either condemn the domestic terrorist for his actions (which is to say that the murder wasn't justifiable, undercutting the personhood of the fetus) or they have to support his acquital and thus support abortion doctor slayings. The pro-life movement has only lasted because they haven't particularly been forced to take their rhetoric to its logical conclusion. S. Dakota basically making it legal to shoot up abortion clinics would force the issue.

[Mr. Coffee]

No, seriously, let's look at their new definition of a "Justifiable Homocide". So I'm at workj and some asshole open fire.... I bring up my AR and drop his happy ass, scan for threat, scan for threat.... Threats down.

Or... Drop the first motherfucker (two center mass), scan for threat, next threat, fire twin center mass, scan for threat, shoot that guy once more, shoot his buddy twice, shoot their buddy twice, scan for threat.. (Six of Thirty fired)

Fuck, I'm calling SD abortion clinics. I can sub as a typist and bring a metric fuckton of firepower with me to work. Shit, I could claim body armor as a tax write off and get to shoot stupid assholes. Where the fuck do I sign up?

[Mr. Coffee]

No, seriously, give me the name of an SD Abortion clinic that is down with it and I will hire on as a "medic".

[nobody_really]

No, seriously, give me the name of an SD Abortion clinic that is down with it and I will hire on as a "medic".

Not sure if I should be responding to this, but, what the fuck. According to This site, in there is one abortion provider in South Dakota, in Sioux Falls. Even if the law were enacted just the way a complete wingnut wanted it to be enacted, there wouldn't be much overall change. I also heard on NPR that plenty women in SD who want abortions leave the state to do so. Sorry, I don't have the link for that story.

[lordofchange13]

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.

At least some of our goverment body arn't crazy, bring metaphysics in to medicine.