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?
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.
I simply answered the question. I have no idea where you came up with the rest. There are many decafinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing. :-)
Innocent child vs. Terrorists and other crazies.
See the difference?? Oh and don't give me that bull that a fetus isn't a child at conception, by your definition a fetus isn't a human even if he's a minute from being born.
e.g. Sterilization
$hit this new crop of idiots in Washington are coming up with that I feel like puking. Now we have the state government trying to one up Washington. It has become painfully obvious to me that higher education does not make a person smart. Some of these elected government officials with degrees are dumber than f*&king; stumps.
illegal just about anywhere in the world) full of people. How are the two things related? You're going to have to come up with something better than that. But to answer your stupid frigging question, no, I wouldn't be opposed to a hero shooting the terrorist, (by the way, how did the hero get HIS gun through security? I hope the air marshall on board don't see the gun and shoot the hero full of holes)
Religious freedom and rights to free speech mean you have the right to try and convince people of your point of view not force your point of view on them through intimidation or violence.
Who are they to judge somebody else?
In the Bible you also find this:
"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
I ask this because people that are against abortion in The Netherlands don't resort to this kind of violence.
I also didn't here of it from other countries in Europe.
Did go to the site of your link.
It seems that there are some updates on this matter.
In both cases, your exemple hijack, or abortion, those decisions are not made lightly or are easy to do.
It may be the right decision on that moment in time, but feelings of guilt can stay a livetime.
Your aswer, making this comparison with a hijacking a plane, makes clear to me where your position on this is.
However the way you try to prove a point is an opinion, made only from your emotion, no reason in sight.
A good opinion is made from both reason and emotion.
In order to answer you comment, I played along with it.
Have you ever thought about the fact that talking with a doctor working in a abortionclinic, or a woman deciding for an abortion, would be a better road to go.
The same for that hijacking of yours.