it doesn t mention women who perform abortions on themselves

YES IT DOES.

No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.

Compare that statement to a later statement:

No licensed physician who…

and

Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician…

There are times when a specific group of people are specified. Other times the group is EVERYONE which would include the mother. Continuing:

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

This does not specify who performs the abortion so it includes the mother herself. An intentional miscarriage is an abortive procedure and would be covered under the law as written. Therefore the mother is exempted from prosecution.

Actually, the Doctor is what’s called an “actor”. The woman who goes to a doctor, and asks for an abortion, is consciously having the abortion administered by the doctor.

The law as it is written now implies the woman has lost her senses or something.

The law can be amended later to charge them with negligent homicide — probation for a first offense.

The law can be amended later to charge them with negligent homicide  probation for a first offense.

If you’re right, Frank, that makes JadeGold prescient and not mistaken about the possible effect of the law.

To prosecute a woman who has a miscarriage, law enforcement would a) have to learn of the miscarriage, b) determine that the behavior of the woman contributed to the miscarriage, and c) that the behavior was intended to cause the miscarriage.

That still wouldn’t address the statute’s exclusion of the pregnant woman as a target of prosecution. The bill leaves a great, gaping flaw: it doesn’t mention women who perform abortions on themselves. I suspect this was omitted because the authors of the bill can’t muster the political will to criminalize women who have abortions.

This legislation states a fetus at any stage after conception enjoys the same full rights as any human being.

READING COMPREHENSION. Look again. Pay attention to each section that actually changes existing law: “That chapter 22-17 be amended by…” Your claim is NOWHERE to be found. The ONLY place the act refers to the rights of the fetus is in the introduction (Section 1) stating, “to fully protect … the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child … abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited.” This statement by itself does not create or change any law. Additionally, the statement specifically states that the only function of the act in its effort to protect the rights of the unborn is to ban abortion.
You are making sh*t up and claiming it is part of the law
Please tell me more about “reading comprehension.”

Rape, incest: Most importantly, the proposed amendment would force victims of rape and incest who become pregnant to carry the babies of their attackers, Pochop said. “I’m here because I believe rape and incest victims deserve the protection of the law.”
Furthermore, the proposed constitutional language is vague, which could lead to problems, Pochop said. If a woman had a miscarriage, officials might charge her with not doing enough to prevent that miscarriage, she said.

Facts are such stubborn things.

This legislation states a fetus–at any stage after conception–enjoys the same full rights as any human being. Thus, if that fetus comes to end via spontaneous miscarriage an investigation must ensue–just as if a six-year-old had died.

Additionally, Jadegold is referring to the woman being investigated in the absence of an abortion provider as a result of this law.

And that could happen. If a woman shows up in an emergency room following a miscarriage, will law enforcement officials want to know whether it resulted from an attempted abortion?

Beats me. However, it’s possible.

However, as noted above, it sounds entirely possible that zealous enforcement of the statute could result in questioning a woman who has suffered a miscarriage.

the SD police come knocking on her door with an eye toward prosecuting her

and

toss a woman into jail for having a miscarriage

So when Jadegold refers to a woman being “subject to a murder investigation” he’s referring to her being a target rather than a source of information.

The law exempts pregnant women from conviction. But how will law enforcement convict abortion providers without including pregnant (or previously pregnant) women in the investigation?

Of course–as can be easily seen—the part of the legislation you posted has nothing to do with the issue.

“Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.”

The emphasized part refers to women undergoing an abortion—not to miscarriages or other accidents that terminate a pregnancy.

Reading comprehension is your friend, JWG.

No it doesn’t. “Pro-life” is a dishonest monicker, and it’s equally dihonest to allege that those who oppose “pro-life” are “pro-death”. If anyone is pro-death in this country it is conservatives, since they actively advocate killing, in the form of war, in the form of capital punishment, in the form of ravaging the biosphere for the sake of profit. Most of us who are pro-choice don’t encourage people to have abortions. We would be perfectly happy if no abortions happened. We just don’t feel that the fetus has rights that outweigh the rights of a real human being to do what she wants with the insides of her body.

Read the legislation

This has got to be the stupidist argument you have EVER made. Seriously. As I already posted rom the actual law in response to the first time you made this stupid claim:

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

Yet Jadegold repeatedly types:

the SD police come knocking on her door with an eye toward prosecuting her

If I ever needed evidence that you were amazingly dense, this is a doozy. I’m suprised you’re not too embarrassed to show your name.

Yes, Mike, you’re right. It’s so much more civilized of us to actually conduct an investigation, then toss a woman into jail for having a miscarriage.

And I have to chucke at liberals who refer to pregnancy as a  punishment, as if procreation isn t the primary biological function of sexual intercourse.

Myself–I “chucke” at your poor wife.

Read the legislation; it affords full rights to any fetus. Thus, if that fetus is harmed–due to whatever reason—that must be investigated. Just as if some adult were harmed or killed.

Just like the Taliban, Jay.

So if a woman in SD experiences a spontaneous miscarriage–she’ll likely be investigated. Imagine: a woman miscarries; she’s probably upset by that event. Then the SD police come knocking on her door with an eye toward prosecuting her.

No — the Taliban wouldn’t “investigate.” They would simply drag the woman into the town square and stone her to death.

Being a Republican, some little part of me will be sad to see abortion go, because it has robbed the Democrats of millions of potential votes.

And I have to chucke at liberals who refer to pregnancy as a “punishment,” as if procreation isn’t the primary biological function of sexual intercourse. I thought you guys were all about biology; you know, evolution and all that.

Liberals also have a problem with the abortion vs. capital punishment issue. You can make fun of conservatives for supporting capital punishment while wanting to end abortion, but your own position of encouraging abortion while decrying capital punishment begs the same kind of explanation. In the case of capital punishment, at least the convicted criminal had the opportunity to choose whether or not he committed his crime. An unborn child has no choice over the circumstances of its conception or the termination of its life. If liberals really want to be advocates for the helpless, then that is the aspect of “choice” that they should most heavily consider.

And as for all the hysterics over doctors getting jail time — I seem to remember that last summer, the ACLU was jumping up and down over the prospect of sending school officials from Tangipahoa Parish, LA to prison for commiting the despicable crime of holding a Bible study in a public school building. So I guess after both sides get through with us, no one will be left free.

Repeating something over and over again does not make it true.