Should South Dakota Legalize Killing of Abortion Providers?
SodaHead News
2011/02/16 23:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
309 votes
|
|
14% | |||
|
1,895 votes
|
|
86% | |||
The Bible tells us it’s “an eye for an eye.” And in South Dakota, where the majority of the Republican state legislature is adamantly opposed to abortion rights, that Biblical truism may soon become law.
Mother Jones magazine reports that a new law that would legalize murdering abortion providers is one of several measures under consideration in the state that would erect further barriers to women seeking an abortion.
The law that’s being considered by the legislature would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Reading between the lines, that means that someone who killed an abortion doctor could technically evade prosecution for the crime.
The Republican-backed House Bill 1171, moved out of committee on a 9-3 party line vote and will move on to the state’s GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.
According to the magazine, “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.”
A day after the magazine posted its first article on the bill, co-sponsor Rep. Phil Jensen responded to the piece, saying he disagreed with its interpretation of the proposed law’s language.
"This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," explained Jensen. "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."
After some backlash, Jensen said he would be willing to consider changing some of the bill’s language.
Jensen said the original bill was pitched as a clarification of the state’s justifiable homicide law, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. It did not include language related to an “unborn child,” but in a little-noticed hearing an amendment was added that included that wording after a number of right-wing groups testified in favor of the amended version.
The difference, detractors say, is between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimes – which is already permissible in several states – and making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge.
Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers, described the bill as “an invitation to murder abortion providers.” She noted that since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts.
Should South Dakota consider making the murder of abortion doctors legal?
Mother Jones magazine reports that a new law that would legalize murdering abortion providers is one of several measures under consideration in the state that would erect further barriers to women seeking an abortion.
The law that’s being considered by the legislature would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Reading between the lines, that means that someone who killed an abortion doctor could technically evade prosecution for the crime.
The Republican-backed House Bill 1171, moved out of committee on a 9-3 party line vote and will move on to the state’s GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.
According to the magazine, “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.”
A day after the magazine posted its first article on the bill, co-sponsor Rep. Phil Jensen responded to the piece, saying he disagreed with its interpretation of the proposed law’s language.
"This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," explained Jensen. "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."
After some backlash, Jensen said he would be willing to consider changing some of the bill’s language.
Jensen said the original bill was pitched as a clarification of the state’s justifiable homicide law, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. It did not include language related to an “unborn child,” but in a little-noticed hearing an amendment was added that included that wording after a number of right-wing groups testified in favor of the amended version.
The difference, detractors say, is between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimes – which is already permissible in several states – and making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge.
Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers, described the bill as “an invitation to murder abortion providers.” She noted that since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts.
Should South Dakota consider making the murder of abortion doctors legal?
If don't want to be moral to the fetus. At least say the truth about abortion and what it does to most women. The entire argument that abortion is in any shape or form moral to the person getting it is completely invalid.
Yes, abortion will get a women out of sticky situation. But don't bs me, that science is more moral then common sense. The moment people find out what abortion is, the majority of people are immediately against it. That is human morality. It is what keeps the majority of people from killing one another. Its the reason that if someone steals your car, a sane person won't go and shoot him.
When people use euphemisms, and manipulate morality into a messed up version of it, that is when you ignore the facts. For example, you say that a fetus can't survive outside the womb that it is leeching from the mother.
You are implying that a baby can survive with human intervention. And what about all the children that have been aborted and survived? That shows you that they can in fact survive. You are arguing for murder.
im pro-choice due to that it's a CHOICE!!!! but to a point, after so many months, then the woman has to deal. also not using abortion as a fourm of birth control.
But, why educate people when you can scare them into seeing your views
but, why
So if you were on an airplane that was hijacked by an Islamic terrorist who intended to force it to crash into the Washington Monument, from your statement, I take it then that you would be very opposed to a hero shooting the terrorist to save the lives of the passengers.