SD Republicans move to legalize murdering abortion providers.

State of South Dakota
EIGHTY-SIXTH SESSION
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2011

463S0397 HOUSE JUDICIARY ENGROSSED NO. HB 1171 - 2/9/2011
This bill has been extensively amended (hoghoused) and may no longer be consistent with the original intention of the sponsor.
Introduced by: Representatives Jensen, Bolin, Brunner, Greenfield, Haggar, Hansen (Jon), Hickey, Hoffman, Hubbel, Kopp, Magstadt, Miller, Nelson (Stace), Olson (Betty), Rausch, Russell, Sly, Steele, Stricherz, Van Gerpen, Venner, Verchio, and Willadsen and Senators Kraus, Fryslie, Lederman, and Maher

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

accomplished.

Apart from the fact that the laws in SD are so harsh that there are no providers in state and they have to be flown in temporarily, doesn't this bill and its loose wording technically also legalize the murder of any conservative lawmakers, anyone who works in insurance, anyone who works for a polluter, or anyone who works for a food company with a spotty record?
If passed, if someone I knew had an ectopic pregnancy in SD, wouldn't it be justifiable homicide for me to kill Phil Jensen, the sponsor of this and many other anti-abortion bills?
This is a worse shot in the foot for Republicans than the Supreme Court taking clause/eminent domain decision that could theoretically force local government to seize the properties of outsourcing businesses and sell them to their employees.

I forget the state (I think Texas) has recently passed laws (or is trying to, pffft, I can't be bothered to know details) that says hospitals would be able to turn down performing abortions, even if it was to save the mother's life.

Did you notice the word "master", seems like the bill writers are still in a certain mindset.

The way it's written, one could shoot the pregnant mother as a means to stop the abortion and be justified in the act itself.

Yes but this doesn't say "abortion providers", it says anyone threatening the life of an unborn child or a parent. If passed, this law is so vague that it could be used to justify murders of targets not intended to be targeted under this law, not to mention violent revolutionary activities. A liberal or marxist could use it to justify blowing up the office of an insurance provider. A Tea Partier could use it to justify lobbing a grenade at a democratic town hall meeting, etc.

Consider the mindset of the people who wrote it, I don't think they thought this one out completely.

If my wife were pregnant and we were driving, I could in theory shoot a speeder from my car, cos you know, speeding is dangerous, which could lead to an accident that aborts my unborn. My wife could thn shoot me, cos causing an accident etc. etc.

Originally posted by Robtard
Consider the mindset of the people who wrote it, I don't think they thought this one out completely.

does this law have any chance of passing, or is it more republican nonsense, like the stuff where they say drivers licenses should be banned or that all people must own a gun? (both recently proposed legislation)

Originally posted by inimalist
does this law have any chance of passing, or is it more republican nonsense, like the stuff where they say drivers licenses should be banned or that all people must own a gun? (both recently proposed legislation)

Considering SD's other anti-abortion laws, I'd say it definitely has a chance. Unless I'm mistaken, they've passed personhood laws that were rejected in other states because they would technically force police departments to investigate all miscarriages, still births, and spontaneous abortions as possible homicides and effectively ban in vitro fertilization treatments.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well it'll definitely increase the size of government since the state would probably have to issue licenses to hunt men for sport. Since there are no abortion providers who are residents of South Dakota or even in the state longer than a day or two at a time, you couldn't apply the law for its intended purpose. Whatever, let em pass the law and deal with the unintended consiquences.

Unfortunately, if this passes there would probably be a handful of murders under this "law" before they decided to look it over again and do away with it. Yet the asshats who thought of it would be safe from prosecution.

*Mental note* Do not visit S. Dakota

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Considering SD's other anti-abortion laws, I'd say it definitely has a chance. Unless I'm mistaken, they've passed personhood laws that were rejected in other states because they would technically force police departments to investigate all miscarriages, still births, and spontaneous abortions as possible homicides and effectively ban in vitro fertilization treatments.

ok, new question...

of all the places where people die because of faults of society (poverty, death penalty, suicide, ****, ANYTHING), why is abortion such an issue?

has it always been? like, during roe v wade, was it such a huge, politically defining thing? or was it just something the "out of the church into the streets" movement got hold of that happened to have traction?

I seriously don't get how people can have such ardent views on this. And just for interests sake, I don't entirely disagree with the pro-life crowd. There is a point in pregnancy where the child's rights supersede those of the mother's choice, imho... I just don't think that moment is conception...

EDIT: the best theory I've heard is "reps hate women"... but can it be that simple?

Originally posted by Robtard
Unfortunately, if this passes there would probably be a handful of murders under this "law" before they decided to look it over again and do away with it. Yet the asshats who thought of it would be safe from prosecution.

*Mental note* Do not visit S. Dakota

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You just don't see the beauty. Under this law, almost anyone with a pregnant spouse or who is pregnant could get an affordable, private health care plan by visiting an adjuster's office and putting a loaded gun on the table.

Be like a more twisted version of South Park's "It's coming right at us!" routine.

"You're threat'n my unborn baby!" *blame*

Originally posted by Robtard
"You're threat'n my unborn baby!" *blame*

your gun goes "blame"?

Originally posted by inimalist
your gun goes "blame"?

They're french.

With laws like these, you'd have to make an explicit list of exceptions, as Darth Jello hinted.

It IS a stupid law.

Would never hold up in high court.

even if abortion is wrong, killing one life does not bring back another.

on the fip side:

want to murder someone with immunity? South Dakota my friend, South Dakota

tourism should incre.... errr... well... at least the murder rate evil doer death count will go up

Well, i'd say it would probably be of benefit if the kind of people who pass these laws were depopulated.