South Dakota Bringing Abortion Front and Center

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

I am at a complete loss for words. A long time independent conservative, a strong advocate of limited government, an advocate of laissez faire capitalism, with libertarian leanings I can not even find the words to comment on the South Dakota House Bill 1171. It is such a bill as one might find existent in a extremist and repressive Islamic Theocracy. It is supported along a party line vote. Republicans are the supporter of this ill advised and dangerous bill. While I do not approve of  the language, "murdering abortion doctors will be legal", and I have not used this site as a source for information in the past, SD House Bill 1171 is so egregiously profane I found myself in general agreement with the following article.

Generally staying away the abortion debate this report pushed me into the fray of it all so to speak. There are times when one simply believes they must register in, even if they would prefer not to, and realize that in so going they are likely opening themselves up for criticism from their own. This is one of those times for me.

From the pages of Mother Jones.

This article has been updated.

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 in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers."

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.

UPDATE: After Mother Jones inquired about HB 1171, state legislators made major changes to the legal language. The original version is here: (PDF). The new version (PDF) is drastically different. The most important change is the elimination of the ability for spouses, children, or parents of a pregnant woman to use the "justifiable homicide" defense if they claim they were trying to prevent harm to an unborn child. Now only the pregnant woman herself can use the defense. The new version also adds clarifying exceptions: the "justifiable homicide" defense cannot be used for "the defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman's body," and does not apply in cases where the woman was using force anything other than a last resort in the defense of a fetus.

Text of full article.

In the meantime I know I will not be throwing my support behind Mike Huckabee should he eventually decide to run for President in 2012. Or any other far right reactionary for that matter.

Via: Memeorandum