South Dakota GOP Wants to Legalize the Murders of Abortion Providers

[crashhelmet]

We touched on this in the right vs wrong and gun control threads. now it looks like the GOP in South Dakota is pushing a bill to make it legal to murder abortion providers, calling it justifiable homicide.

Article Here

Actual Bill Here

Are we going to see yet another State's Rights vs Federal Laws issue here? Can this law even be passed without overturning Roe vs Wade?

ETA...
It isn't quite clear if this bill would allow only the parents of the unborn child to commit the murder or anyone in general. Every time I read it, I go cross eyed trying to make sense of it.

[Andara Bledin]

That's not quite an honest assessment of what the bill covers, actually.

While I don't disagree that the design of the amendments is to essentially make it so that one could claim defense of an unborn for the murder of anyone related to the performance of abortions, I strongly suspect that any such application of the law in that manner would have a short run to being struck down by the Supreme Court.

Regardless, it's an outstanding example of how to make a law that appears to be protecting one group while in reality it opens vulnerability against another.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Then what would be the purpose of the amendment? Connor's Law, or whatever it's called, already makes it an additional count of murder/manslaughter for the fetus if you kill a pregnant woman. Not to mention the State's own laws. What would be the classifying situations where it would apply to the life of an unborn child and not the mother other than an abortion?

Could someone kill a physical and/or mental abuser for the mere risk of causing a miscarriage?

The state only has one clinic where abortions are performed and Planned Parenthood has to fly a doctor in once a month to perform them. The State Legislature has tried and failed several times to ban abortions out right. Now these doctors may have to worry about someone trying to kill them when they come in.

[lordlundar]

Woah crash. You are jumping the gun here. This bill basically allows the act of killing an attacker that is trying to kill the fetus only to be spared from a homicide charge. If someone tries to shove a coat hanger up an attacked pregnant woman to kill the fetus and she kills the attacker, then she cannot be convicted of murder.

The first amendment is to clarify it and the second amendment allows for an outsider to use lethal force in defense of the fetus being unlawfully attacked. There's no mention there about a woman consenting to a legal abortion(such a bill would be struck down by the courts almost immediately anyways).

[crashhelmet]

Woah crash. You are jumping the gun here. This bill basically allows the act of killing an attacker that is trying to kill the fetus only to be spared from a homicide charge. If someone tries to shove a coat hanger up an attacked pregnant woman to kill the fetus and she kills the attacker, then she cannot be convicted of murder.

I didn't realize that was such a common occurrence that it warranted legislation.

[AdminAssistant]

I didn't realize that was such a common occurrence that it warranted legislation.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that would be covered under standing self-defense laws...after all, they're trying to injure the woman, right? But my understanding is that South Dakota is the only state that has granted fetuses full rights.

[HYHYBT]

Either this is intended to do nothing at all, or else it's worded badly... but it could be that the courts would look at the intent rather than what it says. After all, the plain language of Texas' amendment intended to ban gay marriage would bar recognition of *all* marriage, but they don't follow it that way.

This one seems intended to do exactly what the subject line says. I *think* there are also federal laws against murder that could be applied if the state carves out this exception.... but maybe not, and after all, they don't go after (most of) the state-legalized medical marijuana.

[Greenday]

Now these doctors may have to worry about someone trying to kill them when they come in.

I'm sure they didn't already have to worry about that every previous day before this.

It'd still be first degree murder in the federal court's eyes and the Supreme Court would never allow this to go by untouched.

[Andara Bledin]

I didn't realize that was such a common occurrence that it warranted legislation.

When I was in high school, the woman across the street from me lost her child when her then-boyfriend decided he didn't want to have a kid so he punched her in the gut a half a dozen times causing her to miscarry.

He was arrested, 'resisted' enough that he was partially paralyzed in the ensuing fight with the cops, and then hanged himself while in jail despite his inability to use his right arm.

A discussion on another forum mentioned SD recognizing the rights of fetuses at the point of conception, but I don't know if that's accurate or not.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. There's a lot of shit that happens that we can't bear to think about. It's just that for legislation to change, it either takes a large number of similar events or a high profile case that captures the interest of multiple politicians looking to cash in.

There haven't been any high profile cases along these lines, nor have there been any references to an abundance of similar cases. Everything points to political agenda.

I am pro-life, but if I didn't stress it enough in other threads, I care more about what is legal vs illegal. Although, even if this law passed, I could NEVER justify murdering an abortion provider.

P.s. I've been drinking and trying to write this on a new Droid. Hopefully I don't need to clarify too much in the morning

[Greenday]

Basically what you're saying is that you need stimuli to produce such a drastic action and there hasn't been any events to provide that kind of stimuli.

The problem is, there are already people who attack workers at Planned Parenthoods and stuff so just making it so you can kill them is really only a step up.

[crashhelmet]

No... I'm saying that politicians need stimuli. Politicians don't do anything that doesn't benefit their career. This is clearly a case of agenda.

I will never support hypocrasy over law. All of these so called Christians thst murder for their beliefs are hypocrates.

[Greenday]

No... I'm saying that politicians need stimuli. Politicians don't do anything that doesn't benefit their career. This is clearly a case of agenda.

Oh, that's easy. It'll never pass, but it'll please the hardcore Republicans.

[lordlundar]

I'm still trying to figure out where you're seeing it giving a green light to those who want to want to murder doctors who perform abortions.

Here's the actual bill. Note the mention of "unlawful force" applied to the victim.

And yes, I can see the need to a distinction. Andara provided an example where the attacker only wanted to incite a miscarriage, so if the victim used lethal force to prevent it, she would go to jail for manslaughter because her own life was not in risk of being terminated. This bill would allow justifiable homicide to be used as a defense.

[crashhelmet]

I'm still trying to figure out where you're seeing it giving a green light to those who want to want to murder doctors who perform abortions.

Here's the actual bill. Note the mention of "unlawful force" applied to the victim.

And yes, I can see the need to a distinction. Andara provided an example where the attacker only wanted to incite a miscarriage, so if the victim used lethal force to prevent it, she would go to jail for manslaughter because her own life was not in risk of being terminated. This bill would allow justifiable homicide to be used as a defense.

No, that is an earlier draft of the bill. I linked the current draft in the OP. I'll link it again here

There are distinct differences between the two.