South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murder of

South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murder of Abortion Doctors
February 15, 2011 5:54 PM

A bill scheduled for debate on the floor of the South Dakota House of Representatives Tuesday has been labeled by a group representing abortion clinics as "an invitation to murder abortion providers."

House Bill 1171 would expand the legal definition of justifiable homicide in the state. Critics said the measure legalizes the killing of abortion providers by saying a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" an unborn fetus.

"The bill introduced in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers," Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers, told CBS Radio News. "It would actually legalize murder."

Click to expand...

House Bill 1171

To continue...

"Let's say an ex-boyfriend finds out his ex-girlfriend is pregnant with his baby and decides to beat on her abdomen to kill the unborn child," Jensen told Reuters. "This is an illegal act and the purpose of this bill is to bring continuity to South Dakota code as it relates to the unborn child."

Click to expand...

This strikes home as my sister was stalked and assaulted by the bio-father for refusing to abort. In her 3rd month of pregnancy, the man beat the **** out of her. he would have finished the job if it weren't for a neighbor who heard the fight and intervened. While my sister with her unborn daughter Adrian lived through it, it wasn't from a lack of this man trying. The assault gave Adrian a permanent behavioral disorder, night terrors, and other problems; and compounded my sister's PTSD.

Pregnant women, having the right to bodily sovereignty, should be free to use lethal to defend themselves and their children no differently than she can use lethal force to stop a rape.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Seeing as how the mother is carrying said fetus, any deadly threat against the fetus is also a deadly threat against the mother, entitling herself to use deadly force under standard self defense laws. I don't see what circumstances this law would be any different that what we have today. Killing an abortion doctor would not be covered for the same reason that you can't kill a regular doctor even if he cutting you open with a knife. Overall, this bill appears to do nothing at all.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Jerry said:

House Bill 1171

To continue...


This strikes home as my sister was stalked and assaulted by the bio-father for refusing to abort. In her 3rd month of pregnancy, the man beat the **** out of her. he would have finished the job if it weren't for a neighbor who heard the fight and intervened. While my sister with her unborn daughter Adrian lived through it, it wasn't from a lack of this man trying. The assault gave Adrian a permanent behavioral disorder, night terrors, and other problems; and compounded my sister's PTSD.

Pregnant women, having the right to bodily sovereignty, should be free to use lethal to defend themselves and their children no differently than she can use lethal force to stop a rape.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right about that.

However, the language of this law should not give the biological father the right to kill your sister or an abortion provider if your sister decided to exercise her right to bodily sovereignty and abort her daughter and the biological father tried to stop her.

Those who are pro-choice have absolutely no problem with helping women who chose to carry their children to term, and have no problem with women defending themselves to protect their children if they choose to carry those children to term.

What pro-choicers have a problem with is a lack of nuance in this law that will protect abortion providers for women who, of their own choice, choose not to carry a fetus to term.

People who perform such terrorist actions such as bombing medical facilities should not be protected by this type of language in the law.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Jerry said:

House Bill 1171

To continue...


This strikes home as my sister was stalked and assaulted by the bio-father for refusing to abort. In her 3rd month of pregnancy, the man beat the **** out of her. he would have finished the job if it weren't for a neighbor who heard the fight and intervened. While my sister with her unborn daughter Adrian lived through it, it wasn't from a lack of this man trying. The assault gave Adrian a permanent behavioral disorder, night terrors, and other problems; and compounded my sister's PTSD.

Pregnant women, having the right to bodily sovereignty, should be free to use lethal to defend themselves and their children no differently than she can use lethal force to stop a rape.

Click to expand...

Did you in turn beat the dog **** out of her baby daddy?

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

I have felt for a long time as a society we have failed to face reality when it comes to Abortion.

There is no reason for it to be used as a birth control measure un less both mother and father are really exceedingly dumb-asses.

We lie to young people about sex the way we lie about some recreational drugs and all that happens in the end is what we are doing actually encourages you people into sex and drug use.

When someone finds out that smoking a joint will not send you into an uncontrollable murderous rage or anything more than sleepy munchies.

They see they were lied to then they figure the same is true of CRACK, or METH and them they are screwed.

The same is true of sex and we as adults pretend we were the only ones who had sex before marriage while still in school. Truth is we just didn't get caught and or used protection.

Honesty to ourselves and thus to our young people would go a long way to curb the use of Abortion as birth control.

Along with reality we should limit the use of Abortions and more people might just be more responsible.

I appose Abortion but I also appose murder and I see late term abortion as nothing but murder straight up.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

samsmart said:

What pro-choicers have a problem with is a lack of nuance in this law that will protect abortion providers for women who, of their own choice, choose not to carry a fetus to term.

Click to expand...

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain crimes.

Click to expand...

....so unless she's going to kill herself....

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

apdst said:

Did you in turn beat the dog **** out of her baby daddy?

Click to expand...

He disappeared when the cops went looking for him. He managed to stay off the grid, selling drugs, as the state couldn't find him and force him to pay child support. A few years later he OD'd on heroin.

Boy my sis really knows how to pick'em.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

rathi said:

Seeing as how the mother is carrying said fetus, any deadly threat against the fetus is also a deadly threat against the mother, entitling herself to use deadly force under standard self defense laws. I don't see what circumstances this law would be any different that what we have today. Killing an abortion doctor would not be covered for the same reason that you can't kill a regular doctor even if he cutting you open with a knife. Overall, this bill appears to do nothing at all.

Click to expand...

As the law stands today, if a man punches her in the stomach and she pulls out a gun and kills him, she gets charged with murder.

This bill would make that act Justifiable Homicide.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Jerry said:

....so unless she's going to kill herself....

Click to expand...

The Article said:

A House committee expanded the bill to include allowing other relatives to use force, including a pregnant woman's father, mother, son, daughter or husband.

Click to expand...

Or a pregnant woman's husband tries to stop her from getting an abortion by bombing the building of the local abortion provider. Under this law, that man could, in theory, claim that he was acting in defense of the child of his pregnant wife, which is why pro-choicers have a problem with this law as written.

I'm not saying that we should get rid of this law. Rather, I'm saying that certain specific protections should be given to abortion providers in the law to protect them from violent zealots. I hope you see the distinction.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Jerry said:

As the law stands today, if a man punches her in the stomach and she pulls out a gun and kills him, she gets charged with murder.

This bill would make that act Justifiable Homicide.

Click to expand...

While it depends on the circumstances, a pregnant woman can already shoot someone in self defense for physically attacking her.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

samsmart said:

Or a pregnant woman's husband tries to stop her from getting an abortion by bombing the building of the local abortion provider. Under this law, that man could, in theory, claim that he was acting in defense of the child of his pregnant wife, which is why pro-choicers have a problem with this law as written.

I'm not saying that we should get rid of this law. Rather, I'm saying that certain specific protections should be given to abortion providers in the law to protect them from violent zealots. I hope you see the distinction.

Click to expand...

The law specifically says only the woman can use the affirmative defense.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Totally crazy, and a shameful day for America.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

rathi said:

The law specifically says only the woman can use the affirmative defense.

Click to expand...

Not quite.

Here's the link to the law and it's history that was on the article:
2011 Session - Bill History

The original law (written 1/25/11) was written so that only a pregnant woman can use lethal force as an affirmative defense.

2011 Session - Bill History

But it was later amended (2/9/11) to expand it to husbands, wives, fathers, etc.

2011 Session - Bill History

It is this amendment that has pro-choicers worried.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

samsmart said:

Or a pregnant woman's husband tries to stop her from getting an abortion by bombing the building of the local abortion provider. Under this law, that man could, in theory, claim that he was acting in defense of the child of his pregnant wife, which is why pro-choicers have a problem with this law as written.

I'm not saying that we should get rid of this law. Rather, I'm saying that certain specific protections should be given to abortion providers in the law to protect them from violent zealots. I hope you see the distinction.

Click to expand...

See, I read that and I think "some punk in a parking lot assaults my pregnant wife, and now I just lay him down".

Can you give examples where ordinary citizens otherwise blow up buildings for the sake of Justifiable Homicide?

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

samsmart said:

Not quite.

Here's the link to the law and it's history that was on the article:
2011 Session - Bill History

The original law (written 1/25/11) was written so that only a pregnant woman can use lethal force as an affirmative defense.

2011 Session - Bill History

But it was later amended (2/9/11) to expand it to husbands, wives, fathers, etc.

2011 Session - Bill History

It is this amendment that has pro-choicers worried.

Click to expand...

While I'm sure the legislation will be further refined, it's worth pointing out that Roe-v-Wade gives states the right to ban 2nd trimester abortion if it chooses.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Jerry said:

While I'm sure the legislation will be further refined, it's worth pointing out that Roe-v-Wade gives states the right to ban 2nd trimester abortion if it chooses.

Click to expand...

1) I hope the bill be further refined. All I think the language needs is an additional amendment that states that this affirmative defense cannot be used to justify lethal force directed against an abortion provider.

2) I'm not arguing whether or not states have the rights to ban 2nd trimester abortion if it chooses. That's not even part of this particular issue. What this particular issue is about is to allow pregnant women and any other person to allow them to defend themselves and the child without providing a loophole that allows for legal homicide and terrorism against abortion providers.

I think that there are two things that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers can agree on.

1) pregnant women and any defenders should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to defend a pregnant woman and her unborn child against violent attackers

2) such a law should not also allow extreme zealots to perform acts of terrorism and go unpunished

Aren't those two things that both sides of the abortion issue can agree on?

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

samsmart said:

1) I hope the bill be further refined. All I think the language needs is an additional amendment that states that this affirmative defense cannot be used to justify lethal force directed against an abortion provider.

2) I'm not arguing whether or not states have the rights to ban 2nd trimester abortion if it chooses. That's not even part of this particular issue. What this particular issue is about is to allow pregnant women and any other person to allow them to defend themselves and the child without providing a loophole that allows for legal homicide and terrorism against abortion providers.

I think that there are two things that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers can agree on.

1) pregnant women and any defenders should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to defend a pregnant woman and her unborn child against violent attackers

2) such a law should not also allow extreme zealots to perform acts of terrorism and go unpunished

Aren't those two things that both sides of the abortion issue can agree on?

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you would suppose this law could be used to kill a doctor who removes an adult from life support?

To offer a direct answer, if SD were to ban 2nd trimester abortion except when the mother's life is in danger (justifiable homicide), then lethal force would be authorized against the physician.

That doesn't mean anyone is allowed to bomb clinics unless they are a licensed demolitionist hired by the owner to destroy the building. It would, however, mean that a woman's wife could alert the police who could in turn raid the clinic and possibly kill the physician if he were in the act at that moment.\; It means adopting gay men can intervene to protect their child.

Please offer some examples of ordinary citizens using terrorism as a method of self defense, to rationalize your fears.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Jerry said:

If I understand you correctly, you would suppose this law could be used to kill a doctor who removes an adult from life support?

Click to expand...

No, because the law specifically refers to protecting an unborn child.

What I, and other pro-choicers, fear is that this amendment would allow a man who does not want the mother of his unborn child to get an abortion to kill abortion providers and claim that such a homicide is justified because they were killing the abortion providers in an attempt to protect his unborn child.

It is legal to get abortions in the U.S., albeit with restrictions based on national and state laws. So I view violent attacks on abortion providers simply because they are abortion providers to be acts of terrorism. This law should not allow such a thing.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

samsmart said:

No, because the law specifically refers to protecting an unborn child.

Click to expand...

I would like you to reconsider this statement, as the link you yourself gave does not single out the unborn. You cited the definition of Justifiable Homicide, a definition which applies to everyone, not only the unborn.

samsmart said:

What I, and other pro-choicers, fear is that this amendment would allow a man who does not want the mother of his unborn child to get an abortion to kill abortion providers and claim that such a homicide is justified because they were killing the abortion providers in an attempt to protect his unborn child.

Click to expand...

How is that not a perfectly rational act of any father? If the life of my son was on the line I would protect him.

Just as the case with the Unborn Victims of Violence act of 2004, I expect both the woman and the license physician will be given a pass. However, if SD were to outlaw non-life-threatening abortion, lethal force would be authorized to protect the child.

samsmart said:

It is legal to get abortions in the U.S., albeit with restrictions based on national and state laws. So I view violent attacks on abortion providers simply because they are abortion providers to be acts of terrorism. This law should not allow such a thing.

Click to expand...

Please understand that "terrorism" is a very specific thing. An activist group bombing a clinic to gain a political advantage would be terrorism, but your hypothetical of a lone grieved father doing the same is not.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Jerry said:

House Bill 1171

To continue...


This strikes home as my sister was stalked and assaulted by the bio-father for refusing to abort. In her 3rd month of pregnancy, the man beat the **** out of her. he would have finished the job if it weren't for a neighbor who heard the fight and intervened. While my sister with her unborn daughter Adrian lived through it, it wasn't from a lack of this man trying. The assault gave Adrian a permanent behavioral disorder, night terrors, and other problems; and compounded my sister's PTSD.

Pregnant women, having the right to bodily sovereignty, should be free to use lethal to defend themselves and their children no differently than she can use lethal force to stop a rape.

Click to expand...

I think abortionists in general will oppose any law that treats a child in the womb like a person.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Jerry said:

I would like you to reconsider this statement, as the link you yourself gave does not single out the unborn. You cited the definition of Justifiable Homicide, a definition which applies to everyone, not only the unborn.

Click to expand...

Please reread the bill again.

The Bill said:

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.

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

How is that not a perfectly rational act of any father? If the life of my son was on the line I would protect him.

Just as the case with the Unborn Victims of Violence act of 2004, I expect both the woman and the license physician will be given a pass. However, if SD were to outlaw non-life-threatening abortion, lethal force would be authorized to protect the child.

Click to expand...

It may be perfectly rational to want to sell junk bonds in order to acquire wealth and never pay out to investors. But it's illegal.

It may be perfectly rational to want to intimidate lawyers, jurors, and judges up to and including threats of bodily harm and death in order to make sure a son or daughter accused of a crime stays out of jail. But it's illegal.

Likewise, while it may rational for a father to want to kill an abortion provider to keep the mother from aborting the unborn child, it is illegal, because a woman's right to choose trumps a father's right to kill an abortion provider to help that woman exercise her reproductive rights.

Jerry said:

Please understand that "terrorism" is a very specific thing. An activist group bombing a clinic to gain a political advantage would be terrorism, but your hypothetical of a lone grieved father doing the same is not.

Click to expand...

Except when political activist groups support grieved fathers in bombing a clinic since he may further their political goals with impunity. Which some extremist pro-life groups may do.

Take, for example, Scott Roeder, who shot abortion doctor George Tiller and pro-life activists tried to raise money for his legal defense by selling a manual for anti-abortion militants. The "Army of God" manual describes several ways to shut down an abortion clinic, which includes bombing.

Again, nobody is saying that pregnant women, and those others who are able to, shouldn't be able to defend the life of the pregnant woman in order to save a wanted unborn child.

But why should we allow a law that is written in such a slippery-slope manner that justifies violence against people who are helping a woman exercise a legal right?

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Jerry said:

Pregnant women, having the right to bodily sovereignty, should be free to use lethal to defend themselves and their children no differently than she can use lethal force to stop a rape.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but given the track record of conservatives with whipping up and rationalizing acts of political murder, there clearly needs to be a legal stipulation that the law does not permit violence against abortion providers. It's sad that it has to be stated explicitly, but the violence and inhumanity of the radical right knows no bounds.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

samsmart said:

Please reread the bill again.

Click to expand...

I think the law says what i thought it said.

samsmart said:

22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person,

Click to expand...

That part applies to everyone...you, me, hell even the mod team.

samsmart said:

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,

Click to expand...

I'm tracking this is the proposed change.

samsmart said:

or to commit any felony upon him or her,

Click to expand...

This part refers to everyone, not just the unborn.

or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.

Click to expand...

This part regards felony against your home while you're in it; the structure, not a person.

Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person [not just the unborn, but "any person"] in the lawful defense of such person [not just the unborn], or of his or her husband [who's obviously not the unborn], wife [not unborn], parent [not unborn], child [born or not, the existing definition applies to born children], master [not to be confused with "husband" ], mistress [bitches], or servant [not to be confused with "wife" :mrgreen:], 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.

Click to expand...

samsmart said:

It may be perfectly rational to want to sell junk bonds in order to acquire wealth and never pay out to investors. But it's illegal.

It may be perfectly rational to want to intimidate lawyers, jurors, and judges up to and including threats of bodily harm and death in order to make sure a son or daughter accused of a crime stays out of jail. But it's illegal.

Likewise, while it may rational for a father to want to kill an abortion provider to keep the mother from aborting the unborn child, it is illegal, because a woman's right to choose trumps a father's right to kill an abortion provider to help that woman exercise her reproductive rights.

Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, but I had supposed SD made 2nd trimester abortion illegal.

samsmart said:

Except when political activist groups support grieved fathers in bombing a clinic since he may further their political goals with impunity. Which some extremist pro-life groups may do.

Click to expand...

Tell me how this image promote women's health:


What do you think would happen if pro-life made a similar sign with explosives in the logo? It's exactly like Black history Month is "cultural" but mention any sort of White History Month and you're a racist. Pure double standard.

samsmart said:

Take, for example, Scott Roeder, who shot abortion doctor George Tiller and pro-life activists tried to raise money for his legal defense by selling a manual for anti-abortion militants. The "Army of God" manual describes several ways to shut down an abortion clinic, which includes bombing.

Click to expand...

Let's say this law passes as-is: Scott Roeder would still be guilty of murder because 1. Dr.Tiller had special legal authorization to conduct those abortions, and 2. you have to use lethal force in the moment someone is in immediate danger. Shooting someone well before or after the fact is not justifiable homicide no matter how you cut it.

samsmart said:

Again, nobody is saying that pregnant women, and those others who are able to, shouldn't be able to defend the life of the pregnant woman in order to save a wanted unborn child.

But why should we allow a law that is written in such a slippery-slope manner that justifies violence against people who are helping a woman exercise a legal right?

Click to expand...

Well, as a father, if you are jeopardizing my child's life, your life therefor has no value; but we both know the law won't pass as-is. We both know the abortion exception will be installed.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Troubadour said:

Absolutely, but given the track record of conservatives with whipping up and rationalizing acts of political murder, there clearly needs to be a legal stipulation that the law does not permit violence against abortion providers. It's sad that it has to be stated explicitly, but the violence and inhumanity of the radical right knows no bounds.

Click to expand...

It's nothing short of hypocrisy to insist that one person can kill another on a whim, but not be killed on a whim themselves.

Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Jerry said:

He disappeared when the cops went looking for him. He managed to stay off the grid, selling drugs, as the state couldn't find him and force him to pay child support. A few years later he OD'd on heroin.

Boy my sis really knows how to pick'em.

Click to expand...

You gotta love poetic justice. Sounds like it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.