South Dakota Wants To Make Killing Abortion Providers "Justifiable Homicide"

[filkertom]

I have no idea what the hell's happened to my country.

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.

I bet this ratbastard wants smaller government, too.

What the fuck is wrong with these insane assholes who have to control women's bodies and sexuality, force people to alter their lives, save fetuses they don't give a shit about once the kid is born, and stick their noses in everyone else's business? Because their God tells them to? That little First Amendment thing just doesn't mean what it says, after all.

It doesn't even matter that this is as unconstitutional as it gets. It's that the nutbars are so thoroughly in charge of the asylum, the rational is so thoroughly divorced from the actual conversation, that this foul creature feels he can comfortably submit a bill like this, one that would make it legal to kill someone performing, or possibly even getting, a legal medical procedure. Oh, yeah, that's "pro-life".

Jayzus fucking fuck.

Comments

[per_solo]

I want to talk about this on the 'cast...the problem is, I'm so thoroughly demoralized after crap yesterday in class, that I can't work the energy. Am going to save this, however, and talk on it as soon as I can.

I'm just beat...between Indiana trying to make shit worse for homosexuals, and then this...I'm trying to figure where on the PLANET I can go where people respect each other, even when they disagree..and overall believe in individual rights.

*shakes head* Ugh.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Nothing is wrong with the people. They are not broken, or damaged, or otherwise behaving in any way outside the specifications of our species.

Humans aren't nice, tolerant, peaceable critters, and never have been. Killing each other for small things has historically been the norm.

Extra Headdesk Just For You

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

... I suppose it's good to know where you stand.

THE REASON WE HAVE LAWS is to make people behave within a certain set of what we laughingly call "civilized behavior". So that our lives aren't day-in, day-out street fights, raids for food or clothes or trinkets or DVDs, constant rape sessions, etc. Not that they would be anyway, as most people seem to be able to get along without somehow befouling the communal nest.

Saying people generally suck, it's just human nature, etc., etc., is in no way helpful. For example, are you the type likely to kill someone for small things? Feel like bumping off a shopowner who marked up the chips an extra fifty cents? Or, to keep it on topic, have you had the urge to take an AK-47 to a Planned Parenthood office lately?

I'm not the type to go back over your many comments here, nor to haunt your LJ and discern your typical thoughts on these matters, so I can't help but ask: Is that how you maintain your equilibrium in a constantly-outraging world? By shrugging and saying, "That's the way it is"? Because, if it is, fine, dandy, I'll know not to ask again.

[purpleranger.livejournal.com]

And what is the problem with smaller government?

[mimiheart.livejournal.com]

I have no appropriate icon. I heard this on the radio this morning, and I couldn't remember if this was the same state that declared that astrology causes global warming (http://www.smarterearth.org/content/south-dakota-legislature-declares-astrology-can-explain-global-warming).

It is.

I think they should pass a law that says they can only pass one new law per year... Preferably one that has nothing to do with women or children.

[darthgm.livejournal.com]

Nothing, as long as they're not making an escape clause for a Pro-Life lunatic with a pair of Glocks with extended magazines.

[realinterrobang.livejournal.com]

If the government is too small to do the stuff that only governments are really good at, then you're screwed...generally by corporations, billionaires, and/or men with bigger guns than you have.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Killing each other for small things has historically been the norm

Well, yes, and normally these killings are prosecuted as murder to kind of keep things under control.

Because humans also have an obvious self interest in living in societies where they don't have to be afraid to go to the market, or to the doctor.

Tom is pointing out that this proposed law would exist for the express purpose of breaking down this system, in order to make people afraid to go to the doctor.

I think he has a point, myself. But then I'm one of the people the In Sorrow Shalt Thou Bring Forth Children crowd wants to police.

[markiqueen.livejournal.com]

While this is worrisome as a sign of the times, I think it's downright horrific in this context. Partly, this is because South Dakota has a huge issue with domestic abuse and gender issues throughout the state (I can't find the statistics right now, but I'm sure they're somewhere). This seems, to me, like an extension and justification of that.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Nothing.

But if you're going to use "limited resources" as a justification for not raising taxes on the wealthy to provide services for the impoverished*, don't go crying outrage when someone else uses it as a justification for terminating a pregnancy that would otherwise result in an unwanted child which one cannot afford to raise.

*Yet somehow still give tax-breaks to said wealthy.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

...


...


... apart from the fact that government, which is supposed to be us doing collectively what we really can't practically do individually, handles things like road building, pollution standards, food inspection, national defense and diplomacy, setting standards for literacy and education, theoretically keeping unscrupulous vendors from cheating or poisoning us with shoddy merch, etc., etc., etc.? That isn't even the topic here.

The problem with smaller government, in this case, is that the guy who is starting all this is probably one of the types raging against how intrusive the government is and how we all have to tighten our belts. Aaaaaaand he wants to monitor a specific medical procedure having to do with people's sex lives. Which would likely -- wait for it -- make government a bit bigger.

This really isn't that tricky.

[occams_pyramid]

By "smaller", do you mean "government that eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy, and limits itself to only those functions best provided by central government rather than private industry", or "government that stops other people doing things we don't like but lets us get away with anything we want"?

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I was a little angry when I made my reply, and forgot to specifically mention that it's not necessarily "big" government that ticks people off, it's "less efficient" government. (Except, of course, for people trying to make political points by railing about the eeeeeevils of Big Gubmint time for austerity you damn lazy selfish poor people oh and we need more wars and tax cuts for billionaires.)

[mouser.livejournal.com]

Depends on your definition of what parts should be left. I rather like what the military, police, fire department, EPA, FDA, education department (to name a few) are supposed to do.

MY problem is most politicians that say they want smaller government generally make a LARGER one - or want to defund stuff that is supposed to defend me against that wants to harm me.

[qraccoon.livejournal.com]

I don't even know what to say anymore. Between the "forced rape" bill and the added "hospitals don't have to give a woman an abortion even if it will save her life" thing, I feel like everyone just wants women to be dead. How do you deal with people that are legislating your death? People that feel that you matter less than a small lump of cells that may be inside you? That anyone who might help you should die too?

That they call themselves "pro-life" just galls.

[tandw.livejournal.com]

There is a certain incongruity, let us say, between being in favor of smaller (and presumably less intrusive) government and wishing to increase the scope and intrusiveness of government regulation over women in particular.

This particular act isn't as good an example as some of the other things coming out of SDak of late, though. In a twisted sort of way, it *does* advocate smaller government--i.e., withdrawing state protection from a class of people. Considering that abortion is still legal in this country, that withdrawal of state protection is less than reasonable.

Now, do you have any comments about the act itself?

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

The thing that gets me is...

"while resisting an attempt to harm"

Not abort. Not even kill. Harm.

That is a barn door SO wide open.

Anyone who runs a clinic that performs abortions could be presumed to be making an attempt to harm the unborn, even if the unborn isn't actually due to be aborted.

Anyone who advises a pregnant woman about abortion options is making an attempt to harm the unborn.

It could even get so far as someone arguing that anyone who advocates the right to an abortion is themselves seeking the harm of the unborn- in short, open season on liberals.

And this is a case I do NOT want getting before the current Supreme Court. Anthony Kennedy might well side with the conservatives in ruling that civil rights (such as the right to live) begin at conception- thus overturning Roe v. Wade regardless of what else is done with the case in question.

But this is what happens when (a) religious zealots gain control of what amounts to half the political system of an entire nation, (b) said nation allows no practical option for competition in elections beyond the two established ruling parties, and (c) the media marketplace allows the zealots to run multiple news media propaganda channels without producing a strong counter-propaganda system to compete with it. Political discourse has been steadily pushed farther and farther to the right- to the point that a supposedly liberal Democratic President was only barely persuaded not to advocate cuts to Social Security in his proposed budget.

[pandoradeloeste.livejournal.com]

Someone on another forum commented that they can't wait for someone to use this defense to completely subvert the autonomy-defeating intent behind it - for example, for a pregnant woman to kill her abuser, with the defense that hir abuse was endangering the fetus.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I've been saying for years that they call themselves "pro-life" to obscure their amateur status.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

There is a certain incongruity, let us say, between being in favor of smaller (and presumably less intrusive) government and wishing to increase the scope and intrusiveness of government regulation over women in particular.


Not at all. When you phrase the ideology clearly, the incongruity goes away:

"I want government to run things the way I want them to run- everyone must do what I want them to, and do nothing I don't want them to."

In short, it's selfishness as ideology, taken to its farthest extent.

[pagawne.livejournal.com]

I remember watching a 16 year old girl bleed out, while we were pumping blood into her as fast as we could. Yes, this was before Roe V Wade, and legal abortions were almost impossible, even to save the life of the mother.

This is a good time for "NEVER AGAIN!"

Other proposed laws

[rothesis.livejournal.com]

I figure he has to be a good freind of the the Missouri state senator who has decided to repeal child labor laws. See link below.

http://www.firedupmissouri.com/content/jane-cunningham-says-enough-our-stupid-child-labor-laws-already

Once I was a true independant voter. Lately I assme republican = corrupt, crazy, or both; democrat = incompetant; and libertaian = self-satisfied with no compassion.

[fair-witness.livejournal.com]

Y'know, The Handmaid's Tale wasn't intended as an instruction manual....

[tarkrai.livejournal.com]

From personal experience- Germany is actually quite good with the personal rights thing. Much better than my country these days, unfortunately.

(I'm an ex-pat American living in Hamburg, Germany for the last 4 years)

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Nothing- so long as the right parts are made smaller.

The problem is, the rich want the parts of government made smaller that prevent them from ruling like feudal masters over the poor- as it was here in the 19th century, when manual labor was kept indebted to the business owners, worked until their bodies failed, and then cast aside.

The religious want society restored to their idea of a golden age, when sex was shameful, homosexuality was illegal, and women were chattel.

For the non-rich masses, there are only two options of redress and protection from abuse of power by the wealthy, or by a religious majority: a government strong enough to guarantee equal rights and freedoms and to offset the power of the strong; or violent revolution, with all its destruction, death, and low odds of success.

Only fools and idiots want to risk revolution... but more and more it's fools and idiots who run and populate the conservative movement in America.