"Rep. Phil Jensen is considering amending or withdrawing HB1171, a controversial bill that incited a national uproar over abortion.
Critics said the bill, whose stated purpose is to make murder in defense of a fetus justifiable homicide, would legalize the killing of abortion providers. Supporters disputed this fact but deferred the bill from its scheduled Tuesday hearing to consider amendments.
After meeting on Wednesday morning with South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, the Rapid City Republican says he's considering two options.
One is to amend the bill to make it clear that abortion providers don't fall under HB1171's purview. Where HB1171 says homicide is justifiable while resisting an attempt to harm a fetus "to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child," Jensen could insert four words: "to a degree that is unlawful and likely to result..."
Abortion is legal under current South Dakota law and so would not qualify as an "unlawful" act.
Another option is to drop the bill entirely. South Dakota law, Jensen said, includes "unborn child" in the category of "person" - which is already included in the state's justifiable homicide law. This could "rule out the necessity for having" HB1171, Jensen said.
The bill has been put off until Feb. 22. Jensen said he expects to decide by Saturday which route he'll take."
February 16, 2011 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...
"They are talking out there about making it legal to murder doctors who perform abortions."
"who perform abortion" is a euphemism for "who kill defenseless young children"
if someone was trying to slit the throat of an two hour old infant, no one would say it was justifiable to kill that person if it was the only way to stop them
TTF, however, would wants us to accept that three hours earlier, a "doctor" could induce a partial delivery and slit the throat of the same infant and that act should be protected by law
the Hippocratic oath says "first, do no harm"
if a "doctor" kills someone, is he still a doctor?
February 16, 2011 6:26 PM
Anonymous said...
"'who perform abortion' is a euphemism for 'who kill defenseless young children'"
No, anon, "to kill defenseless children" is a meaningless distortion of the concept of "abortion," which is the process of terminating a pregnancy before a child is born
February 16, 2011 7:22 PM
Anonymous said...
really, have you ever watched the Terminator?
what's the moral difference between terminating a child two minutes before it's born and two minutes after?
it's not a complicated moral equation
people are killing children because the children are inconvenient to their plans and they have the power to do so with impunity
it's evil
February 16, 2011 10:03 PM
Anonymous said...
You don't know why any particular woman chooses to have an abortion, you have your stereotype and you can't think beyond it to the decisions people have to make in the real world.
Almost nobody has an abortion in the last month of pregnancy. Do you think it's the same to abort a day-old, 8-cell embryo and kill a baby two minutes after it's born?
February 16, 2011 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...
"You don't know why any particular woman chooses to have an abortion, you have your stereotype and you can't think beyond it to the decisions people have to make in the real world."
oh, I can think of a few reasons
how many do you think justify destroying someone lese's life?
for most, it because the child is inconvenient
"Almost nobody has an abortion in the last month of pregnancy."
actually, a guy just moved to the county to do them
one murder is too much and pro-choice groups support any choice to kill an unborn child
"Do you think it's the same to abort a day-old, 8-cell embryo and kill a baby two minutes after it's born?"
no two incidents are the same but these two hypothetical circumstances both involve killing a living human
February 16, 2011 11:45 PM
For years we have noted here the reluctance of journalists to use the word "terrorism" when discussing attacks on abortion providers. You leave a bomb outside the door, covered with nails that will kill or maim any random person within a hundred yards, and you are an "abortion clinic bomber," not a terrorist. It is a subtle bit of ideology.
The South Dakota legislature is considering a bill that is ideologically as subtle as a twelve-pound hammer. They are talking out there about making it legal to murder doctors who perform abortions. Mother Jones has the story. 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. South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers It is curious that abortion, of all things, is the topic that ignites the fury of the violent right. What is so dangerous about a woman deciding for herself how to manage her own pregnancy? In a world with real injustice, terrible crimes, economic imbalance and deadly greed, unjustifiable wars and the erosion of citizens' rights, these people concern themselves with criminalizing something that an estimated forty percent of American women have chosen to do.
"South Dakota Considering Legalizing Murder of Doctors"
7 Comments -
Well, Jim, you know the old saying....you have every right to throw your fist, but your rights end when your fist hits some else's jaw.
February 15, 2011 12:07 PM
Controversial “defense of unborn” bill could be changed or dropped
"Rep. Phil Jensen is considering amending or withdrawing HB1171, a controversial bill that incited a national uproar over abortion.
Critics said the bill, whose stated purpose is to make murder in defense of a fetus justifiable homicide, would legalize the killing of abortion providers. Supporters disputed this fact but deferred the bill from its scheduled Tuesday hearing to consider amendments.
After meeting on Wednesday morning with South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, the Rapid City Republican says he's considering two options.
One is to amend the bill to make it clear that abortion providers don't fall under HB1171's purview. Where HB1171 says homicide is justifiable while resisting an attempt to harm a fetus "to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child," Jensen could insert four words: "to a degree that is unlawful and likely to result..."
Abortion is legal under current South Dakota law and so would not qualify as an "unlawful" act.
Another option is to drop the bill entirely. South Dakota law, Jensen said, includes "unborn child" in the category of "person" - which is already included in the state's justifiable homicide law. This could "rule out the necessity for having" HB1171, Jensen said.
The bill has been put off until Feb. 22. Jensen said he expects to decide by Saturday which route he'll take."
February 16, 2011 5:35 PM
"They are talking out there about making it legal to murder doctors who perform abortions."
"who perform abortion" is a euphemism for "who kill defenseless young children"
if someone was trying to slit the throat of an two hour old infant, no one would say it was justifiable to kill that person if it was the only way to stop them
TTF, however, would wants us to accept that three hours earlier, a "doctor" could induce a partial delivery and slit the throat of the same infant and that act should be protected by law
the Hippocratic oath says "first, do no harm"
if a "doctor" kills someone, is he still a doctor?
February 16, 2011 6:26 PM
"'who perform abortion' is a euphemism for 'who kill defenseless young children'"
No, anon, "to kill defenseless children" is a meaningless distortion of the concept of "abortion," which is the process of terminating a pregnancy before a child is born
February 16, 2011 7:22 PM
really, have you ever watched the Terminator?
what's the moral difference between terminating a child two minutes before it's born and two minutes after?
it's not a complicated moral equation
people are killing children because the children are inconvenient to their plans and they have the power to do so with impunity
it's evil
February 16, 2011 10:03 PM
You don't know why any particular woman chooses to have an abortion, you have your stereotype and you can't think beyond it to the decisions people have to make in the real world.
Almost nobody has an abortion in the last month of pregnancy. Do you think it's the same to abort a day-old, 8-cell embryo and kill a baby two minutes after it's born?
February 16, 2011 10:21 PM
"You don't know why any particular woman chooses to have an abortion, you have your stereotype and you can't think beyond it to the decisions people have to make in the real world."
oh, I can think of a few reasons
how many do you think justify destroying someone lese's life?
for most, it because the child is inconvenient
"Almost nobody has an abortion in the last month of pregnancy."
actually, a guy just moved to the county to do them
one murder is too much and pro-choice groups support any choice to kill an unborn child
"Do you think it's the same to abort a day-old, 8-cell embryo and kill a baby two minutes after it's born?"
no two incidents are the same but these two hypothetical circumstances both involve killing a living human
February 16, 2011 11:45 PM