South Dakota moves to legalize killing abortion providers

[regulator 0]

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers
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. UPDATE: Jensen spoke to Mother Jones on Tuesday morning, after this story was published. He says that he disagrees with this interpretation of the bill. "This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion." Jensen also aggressively defended the bill in an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent on Tuesday morning.

"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.

The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.

Jensen, the bill's sponsor, has said that he simply intends to bring "consistency" to South Dakota's criminal code, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. But there's a difference between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimes—which is permissible under law in many states—and making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge.

"They always intended this to be a fetal personhood bill, they just tried to cloak it as a self-defense bill," says Kristin Aschenbrenner, a lobbyist for South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women. "They're still trying to cloak it, but they amended it right away, making their intent clear." The major change to the legislation also caught abortion rights advocates off guard. "None of us really felt like we were prepared," she says.

Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University who frequently testifies before Congress about abortion legislation, says the bill is legally dubious. "It takes my breath away," she says in an email to Mother Jones. "Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act."

South Dakota already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and one of the lowest abortion rates. Since 1994, there have been no providers in the state. Planned Parenthood flies a doctor in from out-of-state once a week to see patients at a Sioux Falls clinic. Women from the more remote parts of the large, rural state drive up to six hours to reach this lone clinic. And under state law women are then required to receive counseling and wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure. Before performing an abortion, a South Dakota doctor must offer the woman the opportunity to view a sonogram. And under a law passed in 2005, doctors are required to read a script meant to discourage women from proceeding with the abortion: "The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Until recently, doctors also had to tell a woman seeking an abortion that she had "an existing relationship with that unborn human being" that was protected under the Constitution and state law and that abortion poses a "known medical risk" and "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." In August 2009, a US District Court Judge threw out those portions of the script, finding them "untruthful and misleading." The state has appealed the decision.

The South Dakota legislature has twice tried to ban abortion outright, but voters rejected the ban at the polls in 2006 and 2008, by a 12-point margin both times. Conservative lawmakers have since been looking to limit access any other way possible. "They seem to be taking an end run around that," says state Sen. Angie Buhl, a Democrat. "They recognize that people don't want a ban, so they are trying to seek a de facto ban by making it essentially impossible to access abortion services."

South Dakota's legislature is strongly tilted against abortion rights, which makes passing restrictions fairly easy. Just 19 of 70 House members and 5 of the 35 state senators are Democrats—and many of the Democrats also oppose abortion rights.

The law that would legalize killing abortion providers is just one of several measures under consideration in the state that would create more obstacles for a woman seeking an abortion. Another proposed law, House Bill 1217, would force women to undergo counseling at a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) before they can obtain an abortion. CPCs are not regulated and are generally run by anti-abortion Christian groups and staffed by volunteers—not doctors or nurses—with the goal of discouraging women from having abortions.

A congressional investigation into CPCs in 2006 found that the centers often provide "false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion"—alleging ties between abortion and breast cancer, negative impacts on fertility, and mental-health concerns. "This may advance the mission of the pregnancy resource centers, which are typically pro-life organizations dedicated to preventing abortion," the report concluded, "but it is an inappropriate public health practice." In a recent interview, state Rep. Roger Hunt, one of the bill's sponsors, acknowledged that its intent is to "drastically reduce" the number of abortions in South Dakota.

House Bill 1217 would also require women to wait 72 hours after counseling before they can go forward with the abortion, and would require the doctor to develop an analysis of "risk factors associated with abortion" for each woman—a provision that critics contend is intentionally vague and could expose providers to lawsuits. A similar measure passed in Nebraska last spring, but a federal judge threw it out it last July, arguing that it would "require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients" and would create "substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles" to women who want abortions. Extending the wait time and requiring a woman to consult first with the doctor, then with the CPC, and then meet with the doctor again before she can undergo the procedure would add additional burdens for women—especially for women who work or who already have children.

The South Dakota bills reflect a broader national strategy on the part of abortion-rights opponents, says Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, a federal reproductive health advocacy and research group. "They erect a legal barrier, another, and another," says Nash. "At what point do women say, 'I can't climb that mountain'? This is where we're getting to."

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The South Dakota legislature has twice tried to ban abortion outright, but voters rejected the ban at the polls in 2006 and 2008, by a 12-point margin both times. Conservative lawmakers have since been looking to limit access any other way possible.

Another fine example of elected officials totally ignoring what their constituents want.

"Don't tell me how to represent you. I know what's best for you."

U.S.A.'s one way trip to hell.

edited to add:
OK...the bill hasn't passed as yet and Jensen's constituents may want this legislation.

I'm going to leave my original statement here and await the vote. It's possible that I my change it to a slap on the back to the other legislators who voted it down.

It's just sad that while abortions are still legal, legislation has been passed to make it as difficult as possible to get one while still maintaining the facade of, "It's still legal". Ask yourself why there are no providers in the state.


I just loved the disclaimer on the S. Dak web page for the bill...

"This bill has been extensively amended (hoghoused) and may no longer be consistent with the original intention of the sponsor."

If you introduce a bill, you'll never know how it's going to come out in its final form for vote.
Great way to run a country, eh?

Yet we, as Americans, sit and do nothing.
Well, yes, we sheeple bend over and take it up the ass whenever they tell us to...I guess that counts as doing something.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[regulator 0]

Of course they still have sturgis...to which is probably accountable for at least 10% of the pregnancies in that state

[david3 0]

Quote

Of course they still have sturgis...to which is probably accountable for at least 10% of the pregnancies in that state

Follow the money.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Of course they still have sturgis...to which is probably accountable for at least 10% of the pregnancies in that state

Do you really expect me to...
keep a straight face after reading that?


damn, damn, damn,

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[captain1976 0]

Just think of how many children will be saved for each abortionists killed. I support the bill.

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[tkhayes 140]

thats fucked up dude....

[tkhayes 140]

the country is going to hell. We have the right that wants to do away with extremists yet they themselves are some of the most radical extremists.

We may as well burn witches again.

I actually have some faith in the system that cooler heads will prevail and people will demonstrate that at the polls.

[captain1976 0]

Quote

thats fucked up dude....

Isn't that whats great about this Country TK? We can believe what we want, even if its an abomination to some.

My comment about saving lives is factual, my support of the bill is also my constitutional right.

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[Amazon 7]

Quote

the country is going to hell. We have the right that wants to do away with extremists yet they themselves are some of the most radical extremists.

We may as well burn witches again.

I actually have some faith in the system that cooler heads will prevail and people will demonstrate that at the polls.

And the same FUCK FACES that want to save all those children will not lift a finger to provide jobs or even FOOD for all those families they wish to create...

[futuredivot 0]

I have a real problem with the word "provide"

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I have a real problem with the word "provide"

Of course you do..... next time yall go on a rant about welfare.... for ANYONE... I will be sure to remind all the PRO LIFER buttstains who it is that Is really the LEAST PRO LIFE.


PRO-LIFE= PRO WAR

PRO-LIFE=DEATH PENALTY PROPONENT

PRO-LIFE=PRO-STARVATION of the masses

PRO-LIFE= UNWILLING to pay for any childrens welfare or their families

and the list goes on and on and on and on.

[wmw999 2,150]

I'm quite sure this bill is just a piece of grandstanding. It's disgusting.

Wishing that women wouldn't get pregnant if they don't want to won't make it happen. Wishing that women wouldn't get pregnant with babies who are guaranteed to suffer from devastating life-limiting birth defects like Trisomy 13 won't make it stop. Wishing that birth control would be perfect won't make it so.

Abortion is a serious decision, and should be treated as such. Only in the last 50 years or so has the "life begins at conception" viewpoint been strongly held outside the Catholic church as far as I can tell. Women since time immemorial have done what they could not to get pregnant sometimes, and have also done what they could to (discreetly) end pregnancies that were inconvenient. Whether it was talking to the local midwife, working extra hard in the fields, or other means, it's always happened. But I guess it's OK as long as it's illegal and really dangerous, right

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

South Dakota moves to legalize killing abortion providers

Then:

Quote

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen

I personally think it's kinda nice that SD would consider any proposed law put forth by a legislator. Consideration does not mena "moves to legalize killing."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "South Dakota legislator introduces bill to make killing of abortion providers 'justifiable homicide?'"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

Just think of how many children will be saved for each abortionists killed. I support the bill.

Are you saying you're against the killing of children but for the killing of abortionists?

If so, kind of hypocritical.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Just think of how many children will be saved for each abortionists killed. I support the bill.

Are you saying you're against the killing of children but for the killing of abortionists?

If so, kind of hypocritical.

Using that logic, one would have to consider the killing of both to be fair game otherwise suffer the stigma of being a hypocrite.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Meso 38]

Quote

thats fucked up dude....

As well as a prime example of why I support abortion.

[MBiegs 0]

Quote

Just think of how many children will be saved for each abortionists killed. I support the bill.

That's all the world needs, more children...

Is that REALLY what you want?

[Meso 38]

Didn't you know?

Reproduction is a lovely gift from God, and children should be given to everyone to fill all their deepest loving desires. The limited space, resources and approach of peak-oil all mean nothing, long as you have that special little son or daughter, so that when you die you don't feel like your life was meaningless.

The worst thing about children- they grow up to be adults.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

The worst thing about children- they grow up to be adults.

Ya, so kill em'

What a strange world view.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[MBiegs 0]

Quote

Didn't you know?

Reproduction is a lovely gift from God, and children should be given to everyone to fill all their deepest loving desires. The limited space, resources and approach of peak-oil all mean nothing, long as you have that special little son or daughter, so that when you die you don't feel like your life was meaningless.

The worst thing about children- they grow up to be adults.

If god wants to send me a child as a gift, and won't deliver it in person, he can send it the same way everyone else sends gifts...usps, ups, or fedex(I suppose he could even use one of the less mentioned services... but i've had bad experiences with them).

PLEASE have him include a gift receipt... or it will be auctioned on eBay, thrown out, or re-gifted(i'm the worst at re-gifting).

[Meso 38]

No one said anything about killing a child, just a fetus.

Grab a dictionary and you'll notice there is quite a difference.

Less killing a child, and more preventing a child from existing.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Less killing a child, and more preventing a child from existing.

How about starting with more responsible sex practices/habits...or is that too easy?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Less killing a child, and more preventing a child from existing.

How about starting with more responsible sex practices/habits...or is that too easy?

Abstinence and Just say no is working out so well for humanity.

[Meso 38]

Because those work all the time right?

Out of the several people I know who have gotten pregnant, all were in the process of 'safe sex'. Birth control and condom both fail at times.

While I think there should be consequences for actions, the consequences for those who choose to have unsafe sex and fall pregnant- I think having to live with the 'guilt' of abortion is more fitting than having them try raise a child in an unfit environment. In that case you end up with the child suffering more than the parent.

I may be against human reproduction, but when it comes to those that are born. I believe in making their life and environment as kids as good as possible. It's why I don't drink or smoke, both of these industries tend to have huge negative impacts on the lives of children.