There is something else we're not looking at here. What is easier? To change the wording of a bill to something absolutely outlandish so it's easier to get rid of? Or the old fashioned way of good old debate?
Someone wanted this bill (in it's original wording) killed... and they sure as hell killed it.
Also, there are cases where a law like this would have been helpful. Say you have a woman whose husband beats her within an inch of her life and she is pregnant? What if she gets a gun and kills him? Unless the man is about to use a weapon on her (stick, knife, gun) the self-defense plea is shaky grounds. It's unfortunate, but true - we've all seen cases like this where it looks like it could go one way or another. And it was all done because the woman did not want to lose her baby because her husband kicked her in the stomach.
This law would offer such battered woman cases protection.
Someone wanted this bill (in it's original wording) killed... and they sure as hell killed it.
Also, there are cases where a law like this would have been helpful. Say you have a woman whose husband beats her within an inch of her life and she is pregnant? What if she gets a gun and kills him? Unless the man is about to use a weapon on her (stick, knife, gun) the self-defense plea is shaky grounds. It's unfortunate, but true - we've all seen cases like this where it looks like it could go one way or another. And it was all done because the woman did not want to lose her baby because her husband kicked her in the stomach.
This law would offer such battered woman cases protection.