Results 1 to 8 of 8
South Dakota Moves to Legalize Killing Abortion Providers
South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers
A bill under consideration in the Mount Rushmore State would make preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide" in many cases.
— By Kate Sheppard
Tue Feb. 15, 2011 3:00 AM PST
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.
Read more here: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...tion-providers
It's only fair that if killing an abortion doctor is considered "justifiable homicide" that the definition be expanded to include the killing of murderers of abortion doctors.
"Phil Spector is haunting Europe." - Karl Marx
wtf. I know South Dakota tried to ban abortion before but I never thought they would get this crazy.
i have a feeling this law is going to be a epic failure even if by some miracle its passes in the state , i have no doubt the supreme court would strike it down.
Abortion is wrong, don't you fucking overstand that? I won't be surprised when 'abortion providers' start disappearing in droves. Fuck all the people who can't make the decision to not have sex. Abortion should be a crime. If you think otherwise, you don't stand for anything. Straight up
There's nothing wrong with removing a cancerous tumor, is there? Medically a fetus is not a form of life until half way through the pregnancy. And you're over simplifying why women get abortions so much it makes my head hurt.
There are only three things related to politics that I know for sure:
1. The Right to Complain about the Government and Politicians is the most fundamental of all rights.
2. If you do not know who is running for what, and what that job entails, and what that person stands for and has done, then you should not be allowed to vote.
3. If you are able to vote, but do not, you do not deserve the Right to Complain.
All else is transitory in space and time.
A fetus is a form of life, so is an ovum or a spermatozo or a cancerous tumor in that all of these are living cells. What none of them are, at any stage of a pregnancy, is a person, or a sentient/aware life form. Moreover, even if a fetus were aware (which it is not) it would have no right to use another's body against her will, even if it was necessary for its survival - just as children and adults may not do so.
Bah. I'm so behind in the banning of ATS...
Last edited by Decolonize The Left; 24th February 2011 at 19:38. Reason: Unnecessary response to troll post.
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
