S. Dakota Repubs Want To Legalize Murder of Abortion Doctors

[Bob Schroeck]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/15/s ... he-unborn/]I'm not kidding.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[robkelk]

Bloody hell.

Is murder a state or federal crime in the US? If it's the latter, then people who work in (or for) abortion clinics will still some protection under the law.

If not, ... well, I foresee an increase in "vacations" to North Dakota if this passes.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ECSNorway]

Actually, the wording in question was introduced to address the issue of people beating pregnant women in order to cause a miscarriage, not abortion doctors. It just has that very appropriate side effect.

To clarify, the bill expands the definition of "justifiable homicide", i.e., the use of lethal force in defense of your own life or property or another's, to specifically include defense of an unborn infant.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Rev Dark]

Yes - it is exactly the language used by scumbag wank-stains who who have murdered abortion doctors (eight since 1993) in their own defense.  It is exactly the defense offered up by the coward (Scot Roeder) who shot Dr. Tiller on May 31, 2009.
It was deliberately introduced to further restrict abortion is South Dakota; not to clarify use of force in protection.  Guess what.  If you are a woman being attacked by a man (the situation defined by supporters of this misogynist goat-screw) then you are already allowed to use lethal force in self defence.
Arseholes.

[Dartz]

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

My reading of it seems to apply it solely to the person being attacked being allowed to kill their attacker. It's only justifiable homicide if you murder your own attacker, not someone attacking Joe Bloggs across the street. If this comes to a test case.... God Forbid.... I'd wonder how a judge would see it? It is 'self' defence, not defence of another....

Might be a goat screw.... it might also be a lot of hot air to keep their supporters happy, while not actually making any effective changes, since you're already allowed to use lethal force in self defence anyway.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Logan Darklighter]

There has to be more to this story than this. Somehow I don't believe the actual intent of the bill is how it is presented on that website. I agree with Dartz - It sounds on reading the actual language that the intent is allowing homicide in a very immediate defensive manner. In other words, for example, someone with a gun is threatening a pregnant woman and the only action you can take that would prevent her or her unborn child from being killed is to kill her attacker. (or it would allow HER to kill in self-defense) Or a home invasion thing. I don't think this would cover a pre-meditated killing of a doctor providing abortions. Granted, I've only skimmed the story in the original link. I haven't yet tried looking it up through other sources.

[Logan Darklighter]

Yes - it is exactly the language used by scumbag wank-stains who who have murdered abortion doctors (eight since 1993) in their own defense.  It is exactly the defense offered up by the coward (Scot Roeder) who shot Dr. Tiller on May 31, 2009.

I'm noticing that this defense has so far not worked. And as I said - I don't think the bill does what you say it does.
Mind - the wording is clumsy and a little unclear. In that sense it is still a bad law.

[Epsilon]

You know Logan, sometimes its okay to just say the people behind shit like this are assholes and openly repudiate them. You don't have to struggle to justify this bullshit. You can just call it out as evil.
------------------
Epsilon

[Rev Dark]

This move is what is called a wedge strategy - by deliberately inserting the reference to the unborn, they can then wait for precedence to be set in regards to the application of self-defense; or cited in a different matter.  It is a deliberate dick move.  It is designed to fire up their constituents, give fuel to the fundamentalists, and further erode the opportunity to choose in the matter of reproduction.

Somehow I don't believe the actual intent of the bill is how it is presented on that website.

That is exactly the intent of the bill.  It is designed specifically with the goal of making abortion unavailable.  One of the many hurdles and outright scare tactics that have been used in South Dakota for that purpose.

[ECSNorway]

You know Logan, sometimes its okay to just say the people behind shit like this are assholes and openly repudiate them. You don't have to struggle to justify this bullshit. You can just call it out as evil.
------------------
Epsilon

Okay, I'll call it out: Abortion is Evil. Period.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Rev Dark]

A pregnancy that, if brought to term will threaten or take the life of the mother should be allowed to continue rather than be aborted?  Abortion is evil period.
So someone becoming pregnant on account of rape should be required to carry to term? Abortion is evil period.
A pregnancy conceived through incest should be brought to term? Abortion is evil period.
Hell under that law, by administering CPR to a casualty you could be shot out of hand, because CPR compressions will put a fetus at risk. Abortion is evil period.
Glad to see you have thought it out carefully.

[Rev Dark]

Further the the cluster fuck that is South Dakota.
http://www.sexetc.org/state/SD/#ed
Can I get emergency contraception (aka, "EC" or the "morning-after pill") in South Dakota?

• If you are 17 or older you can go directly to a pharmacy and ask to buy emergency contraception. Be sure to bring ID with you.
• Girls under 17 can get emergency contraception (EC), but the only way to get it is with a prescription from a health care provider. To find a provider or clinic near you, call the Emergency Contraception Hotline at 1-888-NOT-2-LATE (668-2528) or click here.
• If you go to an emergency room after a sexual assault, that emergency room is not required by law to give you information about EC or to give EC to you if you ask for it.
• If you have been raped and you want EC, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673). Open 24 hours, the hotline will connect you to EC providers near you. For other helpful info, check out the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network’s Web site

Did you check that line out. Here it is again.

If you go to an emergency room after a sexual assault, that emergency room is not required by law to give you information about EC or to give EC to you if you ask for it.

Some more fun from the same site.
Sexuality Education

• South Dakota state law does not require sexuality education. Local school boards decide whether or not to teach sex ed and which subjects this education must cover and the grade level in which topics are introduced.
• Teaching about contraceptives, such as condoms, the Pill, or the Patch, is not required or may not be allowed.
• Abstinence is taught within state-mandated character education.
• South Dakota received at least $1,566,110 in federal funds for abstinence-only-until-marriage
  programs in Fiscal Year 2008. Think this money could go to better use?
  Want to see comprehensive sexuality education in your school? You can
  make a difference! Learn more about your state at SIECUS.org, contact a local organization like the ACLU of the Dakotas and be sure to download our Roadmap.

Abstinence only education, limited or no education on contraception...
Great job South Dakota.  That'll do misogynist pigs.  That'll do.

[Epsilon]

Glad to see you have thought it out carefully.

Forget it Jake, its ECSNorway.
---------------
Epsilon

[Logan Darklighter]

You know Logan, sometimes its okay to just say the people behind shit like this are assholes and openly repudiate them. You don't have to struggle to justify this bullshit. You can just call it out as evil.
------------------
Epsilon

Occam's Razor usually defaults to stupidity or incompetence rather than evil, you know. No one wakes up in the morning thinking - "How am I going to be EVIL today!" No - they do evil with the best of intentions thinking they are doing good. It's the classic "law of unintended consequences."
Thus the vast majority of "progressive" positions and programs are explained. 

[Rev Dark]

Logan, that explanation is one blackboard short of being worthy of Glen Beck; not a good thing at all.
Occam's Razor in its current parlance is that the simplest explanation is usually the most viable.  If you are going to posit a default setting for it; it is not going to be stupidity or incompetence, it is going to be self interest; and that self interest is often fueled by self-delusion through adherence to beliefs held without evidence to back them up.

Thus the vast majority of "progressive" positions and programs are explained.

What a ludicrous statement; especially given the context of your original, incorrect assertion.
Progressive positions.  Such as equality for women? Racial Equality? Ending slavery?  Worker's rights?  Not stoning homosexuals?
Now, to bring this back to the original subject; the arse-hattery of Self Dakota.  Stupid?  No.  It is part of a deliberate wedge strategy to undermine the availability of abortion and the safety of abortion providers.  Incompetent?  No.  Crafted in such a way to push their agenda forward.  Promoting self interest.  Absolutely; it scores political capital with the support base.  If South Dakota legislators were actually interested in lowering abortion rates they would be promoting full and accurate sex education; not the outright lie that abstinence education works.
The outright evil arse-hattery of misogynist douchebags.
But of course it is all about fetuses.
I will hand this off to the late Mr. Carlin.

"These conservatives are really something, aren't they? They are all in
favor of the unborn, they will do anything for the unborn, but once
you're born, you're on your own! Pro-life conservatives are obsessed
with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't
want to know about you, they don't want to hear from you . . . no
neo-natal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food
stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you're pre-born, you're fine. If
you're pre-school, you're fucked.

Pro-life... these people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What
kind of pro-life is that? They'll do anything they can to save a fetus,
but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?
They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple
as it gets, anti-woman -- they don't like them. They don't like women.
They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a broodmare for
the state.

The whole segment can be read here.
http://theunknowncandidat...eorge-carlin-unborn.html

[Rev Dark]

[Epsilon]

Occam's Razor usually defaults to stupidity or incompetence rather than evil, you know. No one wakes up in the morning thinking - "How am I going to be EVIL today!" No - they do evil with the best of intentions thinking they are doing good. It's the classic "law of unintended consequences."
Thus the vast majority of "progressive" positions and programs are explained. 

That isn't Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is whichever explanation requires the fewest assumptions, all else being equal, is to be prefered.
But assumign someone is stupid and assuming someone is evil to explain an action requires the exact same number of assumptions, one.
The argument you are looking for is Hanlon's Razor, which goes "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
To which I add Aaron's Corrolary, "Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."
So if you are acting out of ignorance or malice, the result is still fucking evil. The intentions of a person's actions in this respect hardly matter. I could murder a dozen babies because I honestly truly believe I'm doing God's work and its still fucking evil.
Of course, the stupidity defense doesn't hold up to the slightest bit of critical examination. The fact is that the language in that proposed law exactly mimics the language that actual murderers have attempted to use in actual court to defend themselves. This is not an error.
----------------
Epsilon

[Rod.H]

Y'know someone is just going to take that legislation, once it passes, and twist it to fit their needs. When they do, stay the f' out of S. Dakota 'cos it's gonna be open season on drunk drivers, bartenders, drug dealers, johns, politicians, chemists, stem cell researchers, company owners whose companies fail certain EPA guidelines of handling some certain chemicals, terrorists - foreign & domestic, and lastly women in general.

Of cause all of this is moot, if the big shots in Washington find out about the situation. Provided you could prize them away from the lobbyist trough long enough to explain the issue.

As for the potential for this triggering a federal murder charge going by the wikipedia entry, it's not very likely unless it occurred at either on the grounds of Ellsworth Air Force Base, any of the National Parks or it was a US federal government official.

And people wonder why I dread certain fictional works ever becoming reality, for it sure looks like to me that some people want to make them reality and are inside your government now.

--Rod.H

[Logan Darklighter]

Occam's Razor usually defaults to stupidity or incompetence rather than evil, you know. No one wakes up in the morning thinking - "How am I going to be EVIL today!" No - they do evil with the best of intentions thinking they are doing good. It's the classic "law of unintended consequences."
Thus the vast majority of "progressive" positions and programs are explained. 

That isn't Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is whichever explanation requires the fewest assumptions, all else being equal, is to be prefered.
The argument you are looking for is Hanlon's Razor, which goes "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Ah right. Got the wrong attribution there. Hanlon's Razor was indeed the idea I was shooting for. Not Occam's.

The fact is that the language in that proposed
law exactly mimics the language that actual murderers have attempted to use in actual court to defend themselves. This is not an error.

Can you give me a link or a cite? I'm not casting doubt, here. I just want to see for myself.

[Logan Darklighter]

SHIT. Shit shit shit shit!!
Ok. I went and looked this up for myself at the South Dakota State Legislative website. There are two versions of the bill there.
THIS version - Apparently the version as it was first introduced on , is VERY clear. It's meant to expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" ONLY by the pregnant woman herself. NOT anyone else.
Here: It's short enough that I think it won't be out of line to just copy paste it (headers and sponsors and other extraneous info stripped. Follow the links if you want to see them) :

        FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for
the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain
crimes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

    Section 1. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for homicide as defined in § 22-16-1
or assault as defined in § 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 that the defendant is a pregnant woman who used
force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if:

            (1)    Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she
would be justified under § 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself
against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be
threatening her unborn child; and

            (2)    She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are
immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.

    Section 2. The affirmative defense provided in section 1 of this Act does not apply to:

---

            (1)    Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;

            (2)    Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the
possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense.
However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly
force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the
complete safety of her unborn child; or

            (3)    The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman's body.

The above is pretty damn clear. It's not meant to be anything but legal protection for a mother who kills someone in self-defense of her baby and herself.
Somewhere between when the bill was first introduced on January 25 and when it passed the Judiciary Committee on Feb 9th. The ENTIRE THING was re-written. I mean NOTHING of the original remains!
Here's the entirety of the New Version circa Feb 9th:
(with headers and sponsers similarly stripped - again - follow the link for the original)

        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.

That's VERY ambiguous. In particular the use of the phrase "such person" is unclear. At least to me it is. It sure doesn't parse at all as any kind of normal sentence structure. But I agree whatever the cause, this thing STINKS. The first version was obviously well-intentioned and meant for one specific thing and was pretty tight. This .... mess... is a disaster waiting to happen.
What I was originally trying to convey above (and apparently did a piss-poor job of) was that I doubted that the original bill was intended to be like this. And at first I had not -closely- looked at the wording of the second one.
Now I have. And I was right and I was wrong. I was right that there was more to the story than was in the article and the original bill was not meant to provide cover for the murder of abortion doctors.
But I was wrong to assume simple incompetence. No, this thing was DICKED with.
A part of the header on the second bill that I stripped I want to go back to:
"This bill has been extensively amended (hoghoused) and may no longer be consistent
with the original intention of the sponsor."
Somebody in the legislature knew to leave a note in there about this. I had to look up the term "hoghoused". Here's what appears to be the most relevant definition.
hoghouse attrib. connotating
legislation that has been stripped of its original provisions and
amended to accomplish a different purpose. Also as verb.
One bit of good news. Apparently this bill hasn't actually passed the State House. This cock-up version has only passed a vote in the House Judiciary Committee, where apparently the switch took place. I'm getting the impression here that the multiple deferalls noted in the bill history are delaying tactics to give the other side time to notice and review what's going on. Hopefully this thing gets killed (or amended back to it's original version) before it reaches an actual vote.

[Logan Darklighter]

Thus the vast majority of "progressive" positions and programs are explained.

What a ludicrous statement; especially given the context of your original, incorrect assertion.

I
-wondered- if anyone would see that as sarcasm. But apparently not. What
- do we have to clearly tag -everything- these days? Of COURSE it's a
ridiculous statement! Turn it around! Does anyone ever attribute good intentions to republicans or conservatives? No! We're EVIL and we want to kill and slaughter the old and the poor and we're RACISTS! Each and every last one of us! No exceptions!
Please.
You have your crazies and well-intentioned idiots and we have ours. End of fucking story.

[Wiregeek]

http://www.nytimes.com/20...akota.html&OQ=_rQ3D1

South Dakota Shelves Bill Aimed at Defending Unborn
By A. G. SULZBERGER
Published: February 16, 2011
A
state bill to expand the definition of justifiable homicide in South
Dakota to include killing someone in the defense of an unborn child was
postponed indefinitely Wednesday after an uproar over whether the
legislation would put abortion providers at greater risk.
The
House speaker, Val Rausch, said that the legislation had been shelved,
pending a decision on whether to allow a vote, amend the language or
drop it entirely. A spokesman for Gov. Dennis Daugaard said, "Clearly
the bill as it's currently written is a very bad idea."
The bill,
approved by the House Judiciary Committee last week on a 9-to-3
party-line vote, establishes in part that "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."
The phrasing
caused concern and disbelief on both sides of the abortion debate, with
activists in the abortion rights and anti-abortion movements calling the
language poorly conceived at best, and perhaps an incitement to
violence. The bill was cheered, though, by those anti-abortion activists
who argue that the use of violence is justified to stop doctors from
carrying out abortions.
Dr. Marvin Buehner, of Rapid City, S.D.,
who is the only doctor in the region to provide abortions for women
whose health and safety are at risk, said he was shaken by the measure.
"Once
you get the sense that the Legislature will tolerate violence against
abortion providers, even if the legislation is not enacted, it crosses
the line into intimidation," he said.
Troy Newman, leader of
Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group, said he was "shocked" when he
read the bill, which he worried could encourage violence. "The pro-life
movement, by definition, is in favor of protecting human life from the
moment of conception to natural death, and we reject all forms of
violence," he said.
Republican supporters of the legislation said
it was being misinterpreted as an anti-abortion measure, The intent,
they say, is to afford equal protection to unborn children in existing
law.
But Sarah Stoesz, president of the local Planned Parenthood
chapter, said she also doubted the sponsors' claims that the legislation
was not intended to be an anti-abortion measure. "It's a very clear
shift in the conversation," she said. "We have never had a public
conversation about whether it's right to kill a doctor."
Several people convicted of killing abortion providers have tried unsuccessfully to use the justifiable homicide argument.
Dave
Leach, an Iowa anti-abortion activist, praised the bill, saying it
could end abortions in South Dakota by scaring away doctors or by
establishing grounds for someone to kill those who stay.
"There
may be something I'm overlooking, but from all appearances, this bill
would certainly justify an individual taking the life of an abortionist
in order to save human lives," he said.

"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Morganite]

            (1)    Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;

In a way, this bugs me. In the case it certainly sounds like it's meant to apply to, why *shouldn't* a third party be able to use lethal force to defend someone? (I'd think one could reasonably believe that it was attempt to kill the mother in a lot of cases too, so... )

But how would it have to be worded to be sure it can't be used as a defense for abortion clinic murders? Which I think no one here has actually suggested is a good idea.

-Morgan. Every time there's an abortion debate, I feel like slapping my forehead and going "Aargh! This is the wrong end of the problem!"

[Epsilon]

In a way, this bugs me. In the case it certainly sounds like it's meant to apply to, why *shouldn't* a third party be able to use lethal force to defend someone? (I'd think one could reasonably believe that it was attempt to kill the mother in a lot of cases too, so... )

But how would it have to be worded to be sure it can't be used as a defense for abortion clinic murders? Which I think no one here has actually suggested is a good idea.

You don't need any law. People can already defend another human being from imminent danger using lethal force under standard self defense laws.
--------------
Epsilon

[Morganite]

... But there's another law needed for pregnant women to defend themselves using lethal force?

This doesn't seem to add up.

-Morgan.