The war on women continues in South Dakota:
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.
Republicans in South Dakota are attempting to pass legislation to legalize what happened to George Tiller. It’s so crazy I can’t even bring myself to comment.
Although I will note that at one time, a pro-choice advocate may have said “fuck,” so both sides are responsible for this crazy climate.
PurpleGirl
The cold must do things to their brains or maybe it’s something in their water. I don’t know what could cause the crazy to be so strong. But I pray for doctors, medical personnel and support workers who are terrorized for their work and beliefs.
Bubblegum Tate
I feel quite confident in saying that anybody supports this is a terrible, terrible person who probably can’t redeem themselves. But hey, that’s just me adding to the climate of hatred, I guess.
unabogie
Words fail. At some point will we pull out of this death spiral or is this the point we call it a nice run and move to Canada?
TheOtherWA
Stephanie Miller talked about this on her show today. Was sure it was an Onion piece, and couldn’t possibly be real.
What the hell has happened to my country? How could an actual legislator think was a good idea, or in any way constitutional?
Ash Can
I said it in the other thread and I’ll say it here: If this law passes, all female persons who are, or will be, of child-bearing age would be advised to leave the state, because unless they live on the state line within reasonable access of an abortion-providing facility in a neighboring state, they would have no reassurance that they would be spared in the event of ectopic pregnancy or other life-threatening pregnancy-related condition.
ETA: Was it SD or some other state we were discussing recently, that had the full-time but uncompensated state legislature, making it impossible for anyone but retirees and unemployed wackos to run for office?
Observer
So long as Dems don’t stand up for liberal values and instead become fake Republicans, the real Republicans will continue to push the envelope.
The net net of all this Blue Dog b.s is to move the Overton window way to the right. Mitch McConnell is now “centrist”.
Almost every Republican controlled state you can name, Wisconsn, Ohio, what-not is doing something completely whacked out.
Somehow after all these tax cuts and republican legislation, all this sucking to Third Wayers and Blue Dogs and Conservadems will lead to a progressive utopia.
So tough sh*t Cole, suck it up like a man; there’s a lot more of this to come. You reap what you sow.
cleek
the anti-choicers have been using the “justifiable homicide” phrase when describing abortions for quite a while. for example (1994):
abortion even shows up on the Wiki page for Justifiable homicide (pt 7)
geg6
Somebody want to argue again about how we shouldn’t call these cretins forced birthers?
ItAintEazy
@PurpleGirl: Well, I’m pretty sure the good people of Canada aren’t this foam-around-the-mouth barking insane, despite being in a colder climate as I would imagine.
A Commenter at Balloon Juice (formerlyThe Grand Panjandrum)
I’ve been sitting here since this post popped up trying to think of something snarky to write. Nothing comes to mind when you’re talking about legalizing a form of vigilantism.
I’m curious, why would any medical professional even work in a state that depraved?
FoxinSocks
South Dakota is also considering a bill to make surrogacy a felony. They really are obsessed with controlling women and all aspects of reproduction.
geg6
@Ash Can:
Fixed.
Because if it passes there, you know that half the states will be lining up to pass a law just like it.
Women of America, we are all chattel now.
Poopyman
Looking at the bill here, it says the following:
Hoghoused? What’s the gist of the amendment(s), me wonders?
ETA: Can some of our lawyers look at the (very short) bill at the above link and tell us if
materially alters the intent of the bill?
artem1s
its obviously time to end the madness and place all women in a permanent vegetative state so they can’t possible do anything to harm any potential lives they might happen to be carrying. A sane society would legislate this protection from the onset of menses at the very least. That way their male relatives could make all of their reproductive choices for them and protect them from the female tendency to act compulsively in their own best interests instead of the interests of their
ownersfathers, brothers and husbands like goodslaveschattel should.Kryptik
@geg6:
The idea of Peak Wingnut continues to to be shattered, one crazy at a time. The way this country is turning, especially at as fast a pace as it is now, is simply fucking abominable.
Wag
Their souls are frozen by the cold in the winter, like the Grinch.
Dave
Can you legalize murder? Is that even possible?
Soprano2
This is just appalling. It’s yet more proof that pro-lifers care much more about controlling the sex lives of young women than they do about actually preventing abortions. It’s mindboggling that they’re trying to legalize murder in this way.
SpotWeld
… This is probably coming from a dark place, but under this law could a man who beat his pregnant wife to death plead “not guilty” under the assumption he did it to prevent her from seeking an abortion?
slag
Why not just go ahead and kill the woman who’s contemplating having the abortion in the first place? Of course, if you wait until she’s pregnant you’d probably end up with fetal collateral damage, and you can’t have that, obviously. But if you kill her before she’s pregnant…No harm no foul, right?
PurpleGirl
@ItAintEazy: True. Thanks for the reminder of the sanity to our north.
SpotWeld
@Dave:
Check wikipedia for “Castle Doctrine”
Kryptik
@SpotWeld:
Probably not. Since beating her would inevitably put the fetus at risk as well.
However, the clause does seem to open itself up to rather creative and abusive defensive pleas aside from the most insidious one we’ve been discussing.
catclub
1960’s: We had to destroy the village to save it.
2010’s: We had to kill the woman to prevent her from having an abortion.
Remember the Mad magazine cover about Esso turning into Exxon? When you folded it, it said: ” NiXon: Still the same old gas.”
Old Joe Klein still rants about the sixties. Why can’t I?
Marmot
Ha. Who “wants the terrorists to win” now?
Freaking Republican projection — it never ceases to amaze me.
geg6
@slag:
Why stop at “contemplating?” Why not just kill all females who even mention the word “choice?” That should take care of the matter.
Dave
@SpotWeld: Only if the fetus lives. And I wish I was just making a dark joke.
By the same token, say someone sees a pregnant woman smoking. If they kill her and save the fetus, is that a “justifiable homicide” because smoking can “harm” a fetus?
This law is sick. Can we just start asking, all the time, why Republicans hate women? Because that is what this boils down to. A bunch of white guys whose dicks shrivel up when a woman has the audacity to make her own choices.
Silver Owl
Never ever have sex with a republican man until he evolves from a savage abusive asshole to a respectable man. That could take generations.
Poopyman
@Poopyman: Never mind. Now that I read the MoJo article:
I see that’s where the bad shit got dropped in.
srv
If abortions were prosecuted under Stalin, why am I still required to renounce him?
Gozer
Terrorists.
Villago Delenda Est
@Dave:
What the Germans did to the Jews was all perfectly legal, under Reich Law.
Reinhard Heydrich once said something along the lines of “Who is going to stop us? We are the police.”
“Legal” does not mean “right”, or “moral.”
Nylund
Why limit it to a fetus? If someone can justifiably kill one of your relatives, then you should be able to justifiably kill them first. Let’s allow everyone to kill everyone else. After all if murder is outlawed, then only outlaws will murder.
slag
@geg6: Yeah. But you may not hear her say “choice” or she may say it in her sleep or something. So, at that point, you’d be better off just offing her before she reaches child-bearing age. Just to be on the safe side.
So, somewhere between the time she’s born and the time she hits puberty would be the optimal to do her in so as to ensure the protection of the public good.
Elvis Elvisberg
Old news, of course, but there is no anti-abortion movement in this country. There is an anti-woman movement. Fetal life is a talking point. The movement is 0% about government protection of fetuses and 100% about government shaming and disempowerment of women.
These solons could be enhancing access to contraception and health care, but that would be about reducing abortions. They don’t care about that.
Zifnab
Legalizing a jihad against abortion providers?
Perhaps, for ultimate irony value, they could put this back-to-back with a bill that condemns Sharia Law.
PaulW
If justifiable homicide can cover stopping someone who is a threat to others, doesn’t this mean we can shoot the pro-lifers as they are a proven threat to kill doctors?
…but then that means people can shoot us since we’ll become a threat to the pro-lifer assassins who are a threat to doctors… and then those people can be shot for threatening us… and so on… and so forth…
Marmot
@A Commenter at Balloon Juice (formerlyThe Grand Panjandrum): Since this is a big political issue n’ all, they’re talking about legalizing actual terrorism, not just vigilantism.
On a side note, the law hasn’t passed yet, so you might consider scaling back your indictment of the entire state.
TheOtherWA
@Dave:
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. That is the situation, exactly.
Comrade Dread
I really don’t see a purpose for this law other than what is purported here.
Isn’t it already considered justifiable homicide if you kill someone who is an active threat to yourself or to another person?
geg6
@slag:
Yeah, you’re right.
Damn, who knew Margaret Atwood was a prophet and not really a novelist at all?
Villago Delenda Est
@PaulW:
Pretty much the argument for preemptive war. Poles and Iraqis need to be dealt with early, and often.
Kryptik
@Marmot:
Considering how unabashedly anti-Abortion SD is in general, and their already ridiculously anti-abortion state laws already on books, this feels like it’s a foregone conclusion.
liberal
@Dave:
IANAL, but…
Well, most of the time we think of crimes like murder being governed by state law.
I think there’s been prosecutions by the Federal Gov’t for murder conducted in other countries. I don’t quite understand that, because we have no sovereignty there. I posted to a moderated usenet group on law, and they seemed to be of the mind that it was possible, and that in fact there were statutes on the federal books.
So maybe an existent federal law or one that could be written could criminalize the murder of abortion doctors in SD anyway. But maybe there’s some kind of federalism issue that interferes with that in a way it doesn’t with these prosecutions of murder overseas.
Maybe the perps could also be vulnerable to a Federal civil rights charge (though maybe that’s only applicable to actual agents of the state).
Ash Can
@Marmot: I for one am not about to indict the entire state, not by a long shot. There are women and girls living there to whom my heart goes out, and there are undoubtedly men and boys there who are sympathetic to them. The monsters in the state legislator supporting this bill, on the other hand, are an extraordinary kind of evil.
Sue
Geez, anti-whatever legislation is popping up all over the place, as these freaks seek to destroy through legislation the rights of womens, gays, brown people, non-fundy Christians, non-married heteros, you name it. It’s getting to the point that there’s no place left to vacation, I’m boycotting 90% of the states as vacation destinations for one reason or another.
Good thing I can’t afford to go anywhere anyway.
Josh James
One thing I always wondered about these “pro-life” crazies …
Why is it always the doctor that’s blamed for “murder”, why aren’t they arresting all these women who chose to get an abortion?
If a South Dakota wingnut shoots a pregnant woman to stop her from getting an abortion, does that mean it’s not murder if the fetus survives? If the fetus doesn’t make it, does that make it non-justified homicide?
Marmot
@Kryptik: Nah. There are always non-crazy people in wingnut-overrun territory who could really use our support, rather than our collective blame. Besides, it’s just sloppy thinking.
The wingnuts have the power now, but that ain’t always going to be the case.
Feed of the Nort
Next up Honour Killings
Any woman who has had an abortion had dishonoured her self and her family. Thus she must be killed to protect the good name of the family.
Then…
Any woman that has had sex outside of marriage…
Finally…
Any woman that has had sex for any purpose other than creating life…
(note the last example is taken from Catholic doctrine that the only purpose for sex is potential procreation)
Petorado
I hope someone brings up that this bill could allow a pregnant woman to get off with killing her husband/ boyfriend by saying he was drunk/ abusive and was attempting to harm the fetus.
Jay in Oregon
@Petorado:
What a shining example of the Doctrine of Unintended Consequences!
Suffern ACE
@Petorado: Well a few instances of that and we’ll have to rethink things.
Ash Can
@Josh James:
Because women are poor, dumb creatures who are incapable of thinking for themselves. They’re to be pitied rather than punished.
Howlin Wolfe
@FoxinSocks: South Dakota, the “Handmaiden’s State”!
Suffern ACE
Sure the bill was hoghoused. What was it originally supposed to be? The parks and recreation department appropriation or was it a “lets legislate about abortion and adoption” and things got out of hand?
Midnight Marauder
@SpotWeld:
By “dark place”, do you mean the “South Dakota House of Representatives”?
Lee
I wonder if you could use this law to kill anti-abortion protesters?
Catsy
@Dave:
The concept of “murder” exists purely as a legal artifact: a murder is an unlawful killing.
So yes, pretty much by definition you can legalize murder by declaring that a killing under specific circumstances is not murder.
See also the above cites of, e.g., Castle laws.
Karen
@geg6:
YES! With every day and every misogynistic law the Repthuglicans want to pass, it becomes more and more like “A Handmaid’s Tale.”
All of you. Read that book. Written about 25 years ago or so, give or take, then you see what happens when the Church overthrows the government in a coup.
Citizen_X
@Lee: Better yet: if this bill passes, it’s legal to kill SD legislators to protect abortion doctors.
Or maybe we would have to do it before the bill passes. Hmm. Gotta think about that one.
Sue
Have you folks heard that Margaret Atwood’s book has been re-named?
http://betterbooktitles.com/post/2744363807/handmaidstale
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
Here’s a scenario – I rape and impregnate you. If you get an abortion I get to kill you.
Here’s another – I’m driving with my pregnant wife and we get into an accident. I get to kill the other driver.
cyntax
@Karen:
Speaking of Atwood, has anyone seen the site “betterbooktitles”? They’ve got one for the Handmaid’s Tale.
And I’m looking forward to trying to find common ground with the rethuglicans over the next two years, should be fun.
ET
Is it also justifiable homicide or self defense if you kill the someone who is trying to kill you while they are trying to “protect” some fetus or other?
Is it then justifiable homicide if someone kills the someone protecting themselves from the person trying to kill to protect some fetus or other?
Or did I just confuse myself?
Karen
@Observer:
OMFG! You moron! Blue Dogs may be Consevadems but at least none of them would sanction a murder doctrine like this! You use this as an excuse to spread your Janeisms and GOS dictates? The fact that you would even do that with this potential law demonstrates that you’re no better than the Tea Party that blames Obama for snow storms!
John Cole reaps what he sows? Really? What kind of Democrat would have chance to win the vote in these red states? The country vascilates between left and right of center, Kucinich has ZERO chance of the whole country agreeing to vote for him.
Actually sweetness, it’s YOU who reaps what you sow. You and Jane and kos.
You stayed home because the conservadem didn’t pass your litmus test and you plan to do the same if Barack Obama won’t kiss your ring.
Don’t think about Hilary Clinton as your shining Princess will save the country with the liberalness you seem to think will happen. Never mind that she’s more of a hawk than Obama is and she’s a blue dog.
forget you!
athena
Just wondering what would happen to a doctor who assisted a women who had a miscarriage? To even get near a woman who might be pregnant would put doctors and nurses in danger. Maybe that’s the point? Are they really trying to kill women by denying them basic health care?
Mary
@geg6:
Out of curiosity, what is the argument against calling the forced birthers?
debbie
I keep reading how most of these proposals are “symbolic” and are not intended to be enacted, but instead are meant to stand as “principles” of conservatism.
How about something symbolic from Democrats, like introducing a bill to confer full human status on women. Clearly they are under attack from the more conservative quarters.
TenguPhule
And so we slide into civil war as a nation inch by legalized inch.
It will only stop being fun and games for the right when a lot of them die horribly. And not one second before.
Kryptik
@Marmot:
I meant more of the fact that this law is, barring some freak explosion of conscience amongst the SD legislature, will pass. It will be state law, and SD will be even more monstrous for it.
Yes, I know there are sane, good South Dakotans. Just like there are good, sane Texans. But the fact of the matter is the wingnuts own both fucking states and that, as governments, they’re fucking nuts and essentially beyond hope.
shortstop
Wait, do we get to kill the women seeking abortions, too, or are we just trying to intimidate medical professionals? I mean, of course we can’t kill the women, because that will kill the fetuses, so maybe we could just involuntarily commit these ladies until they give birth?
TooManyJens
God damn it. It’s like these people want to do the worst thing possible for women and children — can they possibly believe that their shenanigans will accomplish anything but letting them preen about how ‘righteous’ they are?
I wrote this shortly after George Tiller was killed, and I’m depressed at having to drag it out again: The Fallacy of ‘Justifiable Homicide’
daveNYC
Next step is someone kidnaps a woman expressly to prevent her from getting an abortion.
Alan in SF
Pro-choice advocates ought to make a reasonable compromise with pro-life forces and agree that it’s okay to seriously maim an abortion provider, but not to kill him/her.
SiubhanDuinne
@slag:
In that case, I sure would hate to dream about someone named Joyce.
Glen Tomkins
They should be careful how they word the thing
If they get rhetorically greedy and extend this “protection” to people who shoot anyone who acts to keep any human life from harm, they might find that the law shields people who take pot shots at them for failing to vote for universal health care. Tens of thousands of post-fetal human lives are lost every year for lack of medical care, so they better word it so that the law only protects human life between conception and delivery, and not after delivery.
Poopyman
@TenguPhule:
Last time it was called The War of Northern Aggression, and it’s now looked back on wistfully and rather fondly. I dunna think that’ll do the trick.
quaint irene
Damn, now that is one fucked-up, scary parade.
TooManyJens
Mother Jones posted an update: they’ve completely changed the bill.
themann1086
@slag: A lot of people said “but then the fetus would die, so no”, but they’re wrong: Forced birthers have no problem killing both woman and fetus to make a point. That’s “morality” according to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops!
TooManyJens
And Mother Jones has updated the story again, and taken down their earlier update and the links to the two different versions of the bill. This is really sloppy reporting — I have no idea what’s going on at this point.
Comrade Nikolita
@unabogie:
We’re not perfect here either – more and more people are questioning the availability of abortion up here, but apparently the public is “not sure what to do about it” (according to a recent newspaper article I read, and no I don’t have a source).
That being said, while it may be hard for women in some communities to get access to abortion providers, at least it is 100% legal up here.
geg6
@Mary:
I’m not sure I understand it as I’ve heard two arguments about it, but it’s something about it not being a vicious enough term or it’s too vicious. For me, it’s the exact truth.
Ryan Cunningham
Wait… So I can kill to prevent a killing? So doesn’t that mean it’s legal to kill the pro-lifer to prevent them from murdering the abortion doctor? Can someone murder me to prevent me from murdering the pro-lifer?
There’s gonna be a lot of killin goin on!
TomG
I have read The Handmaid’s Tale and thought at the time that it could easily be seen as a horror novel.
When I saw the movie, I was shaking by the end and could barely talk afterwards for almost half an hour. I knew it was just fiction, but still had a strong impact on me.
Svensker
My wingnut cousin assures me that the bill is only to allow the MOTHER to perform homicide on people who are trying to kill her unborn child:
the amended bill (which has a link in the article) clearly states that only the MOTHER of the unborn child is allowed to use “justifiable homicide” as defense of killing someone attempting to kill her unborn child. This would eliminate abortion providers unless it were a case of the mother changing her mind and the doctor continuing the procedure anyway. I would guess this would be unlikely, though there have been some accusations to this effect at some Planned Parenthood clinics.
Because mothers whose baby-filled bellies are being attacked by maniacs wouldn’t be able to do anything about that without a law saying she could defend her belly.
Matt
@TheOtherWA:
FTFY. Like most any group of misogynistic douchebags, I suspect modern Republicans are mostly just irritated they have to get married to women and can’t just fuck each other all day. See also Jersey Shore.
bemused
@Dave:
That explains a lot of Republican men but not the Republican women. I’m going to go with insanity.
asiangrrlMN
I’m starting an Underground Railroad to and from MN for women in SD who need abortions. For now, at least, our laws are better. This shit is just sickening.
@Karen: Ditto what you said. No Conservadems mean no seats at all in some of these places. And no matter how conservative the Blue Dawgs are, they are better than the Republicans.
scarshapedstar
Doesn’t this mean that you could kill the mother? I mean, she’s trying to harm her own unborn child, after all.
Comrade Colette Collaboratrice
@TooManyJens: Here’s what MJ says now:
So, a little sloppy, but trying to get it right.
@Svensker: If that link gives the full text (very short) of the bill, then it does seem to restrict action to the fetus’ parent (“unborn child of such person”), but it seems like it could cover the fetus’ father as well.
Socraticsilence
@Svensker:
Yeah I’m pretty sure that Homicide under those circumstances is legal anyway due to self-defense laws.
Socraticsilence
@scarshapedstar:
They need to clarify if its person, or mother as Person would by definition include the Father as well.
celiadexter
If this passes, South Dakota becomes a state sponsor of terrorism.
Chet
@bemused: Indeed, some of the most batshit forced-birth advocates you’ll ever find are female.
My theory is that, having chosen to go the traditional housewife route (or having the choice made for them by circumstance or upbringing or whatever), these women will be damned if they’ll see their more liberated/uppity counterparts enjoying the kind of freedom they couldn’t, or wouldn’t.
John
as a resident of south dakota, i can’t say i’m entirely surprised.
we’ve voted on “outlawing” abortion twice recently, and it’s been defeated soundly. i head some random republican then claim that south dakota is still a staunch pro-life state.
but the amount of crazy coming from the legislators lately is astounding.
Wile E. Quixote
Women need to start killing guys like Phil Jensen. It’s the only thing the bastards will understand.
DougW
The Republican party hasn’t separated itself from these wackos, and pretty soon, they will pay the price. With all of the deliberate economic redistribution of wealth (read giving it all away to their paymasters), and the current call to make sure that we won’t even have determination over our bodily functions, pretty soon all the crap that Republicans say about Democrats is going to come true. Remember the Tea Party meme about death panels? Well, the first instance of death panels came up as a proposal by Governor Brewer in the rotting state of Arizona. She was all for crossing certain expensive people off of medicare. Government employee with cancer? You’re on your own in spite of the money you paid into the system…
Finally, aides close to the Arch Duchess of Arizona believe that the state probably erred in providing any benefits to public employees at all. In the meantime, Arizona congress critters get maximum benefit plans with minimum deductibles, few restrictions and the “gold plated coverage” that the Tea Party decries.
The Tea Party doesn’t like that level of coverage (when someone points out what members of congress automatically receive. As long as it’s hush hush, they’ll take the benefit and start attacking should anyone complain about their hypocrisy…
DougW
Republicans are only “pro-life” if it’s regarding a poor person. For Republicans abortions are just a little tiny embarrassment that their cash can cover up. Something that hubby shouldn’t hear about, or for either husband or wife to cover a “tiny” indiscretion. Those are OK reasons for abortions. If you’re actually desperate, or your husband will kill, not so much. Poor people aren’t allowed abortions either, because no joy is allowed to them buy the Master(s)…
salvador dalai llama
Hot diggity. I’m planning to move to North Dakota, so I can kill some smokers. After all, if they’re smoking near a pregnant woman, aren’t they harming the fetus? And not a jury in the state can convict me.
salvador dalai llama
Oh, and another question. Since you don’t know for sure that the doctor is going to harm the fetus until the procedure is happening, wouldn’t this mean that it was only justifiable to kill the doctor *while they were attempting to perform the abortion*? So the anti-abortion terrorist would have to break into the operating room and hope he got off the lucky shot right before the doctor can do anything. Straight out of an action movie.