South Dakota Conservatives Propose Legalizing The Murder Of Abortion Providers

8:47 am EST February 15th, 2011 | Conservative | 32 Comments

Remember, none dare call them the American Taliban.

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.

Topic: ,

Related Posts

«
»

32 Responses to “South Dakota Conservatives Propose Legalizing The Murder Of Abortion Providers”

  1. Enlightened Liberal says:
    February 15, 2011 at 10:25 am

    So, if the doctor is guilty of homocide, what is the penalty for the person (the woman) who pays for and sanctions the “homocide?” Will we ever get some consistency? Doubtful. Because if they start sending women who have abortions to jail their whole movement loses support among anyone who isn’t rabidly anti-choice.

  2. jrfunkenstein says:
    February 15, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Holy fuck; that’s just insane. How does this even get to committee?

  3. Repack Rider says:
    February 15, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Would this be “honor killing?”

  4. Willie Stark says:
    February 15, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Could I shoot a woman on her way to the abortion clinic if I could find a way to do it without harming the fetus? Could I shoot the cab driver taking her to the clinic if he intefered?

  5. rat_bastard says:
    February 15, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Not “Pro Life”, “Forced Birth”. The real nanny state tyrants have always been the conservatives who will do anything legal or illegal to force their views into other people.

  6. Frank DiSalle says:
    February 15, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    I think we should call it The Post Medical School Abortion Bill. Then all the Lefties can get on board.

    Oh, and rat? If it ain’t “forced fucking”, it ain’t “forced birth.”
    Just sayin’

  7. Frank DiSalle says:
    February 15, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions.
    Wouldn’t a doctor have to be in the act of performing an abortion, before you could say you killed him to prevent it?
    After all, under current law, you can’t say you killed someone because you thought they were going to kill you.

  8. The Dark Avenger says:
    February 15, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    After all, under current law, you can’t say you killed someone because you thought they were going to kill you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense#Legal_status_of_self-defense

    In burglary situations given the so-called castle exception (see: Edward Coke) which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one’s own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium” i.e. Latin for “and one’s home is the safest refuge”). New York Penal Law section 35.15 effectively ordains that: “A person may… use DEADLY physical force upon another person” “when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be …. a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) … a burglary….” There is no duty to retreat under these circumstances. However, if one is “challenged” in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge and using deadly force, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.

    I see that as allowing homicide in self-defense if you think your life is in danger, because you aren’t required to retreat from inside your home.

  9. mambochicken23 says:
    February 15, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    I think we should call it The Post Medical School Abortion Bill. Then all the Lefties can get on board.

    Hilarious.

    Oh, and rat? If it ain’t “forced fucking”, it ain’t “forced birth.”

    Why do you hate women, Frank?

    After all, under current law, you can’t say you killed someone because you thought they were going to kill you.

    Are you ever right about anything? My experience says no.

  10. merl says:
    February 15, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    that sounds like the first step to declaring sharia law.

  11. jrfunkenstein says:
    February 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    ‘Could I shoot a woman on her way to the abortion clinic if I could find a way to do it without harming the fetus? Could I shoot the cab driver taking her to the clinic if he intefered?’

    You’d have to kill her parents, the guy she slept with and his parent’s the abortion doctor’s parents, all of their parents; it’d be a regular Peckinpah film.

    Just to you know, avenge the unborn.

  12. jrfunkenstein says:
    February 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    ‘Oh, and rat? If it ain’t “forced fucking”, it ain’t “forced birth.”
    Just sayin’’

    What we’re hearing Frank, is you despise women.

  13. rat_bastard says:
    February 15, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    This Anti Woman bullshit is going on at a federal level as well.
    http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/press-releases/2011/pr02152011-hr258.html

  14. Zython says:
    February 15, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    What we’re hearing Frank, is you despise women.

    Personally, I’m more worried about Frank supporting domestic terrorism.

  15. LongHairedWeirdo says:
    February 15, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    A couple of things:

    First off, anyone who mistakes “abortion” for “killing” hasn’t learned basic English. When an abortion is performed, a pregnancy is ended, rather than allowed to continue to whatever end would have occurred. Similarly, if you’re in the military, and your mission is “aborted”, you’re to stop the mission, rather than allow it to continue.

    Second: yes, forbidding early term abortion is forcing childbirth. The state has no interest in a zygote or an early term fetus, and under no circumstances has the right to force a person to allow another person to attach and draw sustenance at a risk of the second person’s health. This is a very conservative view, a very “small government” view, and it would be surprising if the Republicans were conservative and opposed abortion rights. But they’re not conservative.

  16. Thad says:
    February 15, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    “Oh, and rat? If it ain’t “forced fucking”, it ain’t “forced birth.”
    Just sayin’”

    Now, everybody has rightfully focused on the logical fallacy and obvious misogyny of this statement, and rightly so.

    But looks like I’m the first to ask the question, what if it IS rape, Frank? Do you believe people should be allowed to murder doctors under THOSE circumstances, or only if a condom breaks?

  17. mambochicken23 says:
    February 15, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    it would be surprising if the Republicans were conservative and opposed abortion rights. But they’re not conservative.

    They’re not interested in small government when it comes to people’s sex lives. Repressed fucks. My ex-girlfriend once remarked to me that she seriously doubted that conservative men could be any good in bed. I guffawed, but there’s probably a grain of truth in that.

  18. rat_bastard says:
    February 15, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Don’t forget Thad that just because a Woman has become pregnant does not mean that the pregnancy is medically advisable or viable.

    One thing the woman hating forced birthers who demonized and ultimately murdered Dr. George Tiller keeps overlooking is that the bulk of his patients where referrals from other doctors who needed his expertise for medical reasons.

  19. Frank DiSalle says:
    February 15, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    What I’m hearing is that abortion is the closest a liberal can come to a sacrament, as they make themselves the self-appointed guardians of a women’s womb – nothing gets in here, but dildos, penises and , oh, yeah, forceps and suction instruments.

  20. rat_bastard says:
    February 15, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    That was pathetic Frank.

  21. jrfunkenstein says:
    February 15, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    ‘Personally, I’m more worried about Frank supporting domestic terrorism.’

    Didn’t you know Zython? That’s just how ‘real’ Americans uphold the Constitution they were in favor of shredding under Gee Dumbya.

  22. jrfunkenstein says:
    February 15, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    ‘What I’m hearing is that abortion is the closest a liberal can come to a sacrament,’

    You must belong to one fucked up church Frank.

    Oh right….you do.

  23. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 16, 2011 at 2:13 am

    nothing gets in here, but dildos, penises and , oh, yeah, forceps and suction instruments.

    What on earth made you this way?

  24. db says:
    February 16, 2011 at 5:59 am

    “definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus”

    So I get to shoot a pregnant woman I see smoking?

    No Frank,

    It’s not a sacrament. As has been said before, we’d all be happy if no abortion ever needed to be performed again, but it is the right of the individual woman to make her choice that we defend. We do not dictate what that choice must be. But we insist that she not be coerced or threatened into that choice.

  25. Frank DiSalle says:
    February 16, 2011 at 6:33 am

    it is the right of the individual woman to make her choice that we defend.
    And it is the right of potential life to continue on its path that I defend.

    Quaker, it was nothing on earth that made me this way.
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

  26. jrfunkenstein says:
    February 16, 2011 at 7:53 am

    ‘And it is the right of potential life to continue on its path that I defend.’

    In that case you should have been against an illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq; but you weren’t, were you?

    And alluding that your philosophies were made in Heaven? Oy.

  27. Frank DiSalle says:
    February 16, 2011 at 9:31 am

    In that case you should have been against an illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq.
    If it were both illegal and unnecessary, it would not be just. If it is a just war, then it is a moral one. So equating abortion with pacifism won’t work. We are not talking Jainism here.
    alluding [to the idea] that your philosophies were made in Heaven?
    Actually, I only said it was not made on earth.

  28. The Dark Avenger says:
    February 16, 2011 at 9:57 am

    Again, in the eighteenth-century, my favorite period in English Literature, (at the dawn of the modern era–but before Louis Pasteur), accoucheurs (the precursors of obstetricians) killed many women with the microbes they unknowingly carried from the sickbeds of other patients. There was a great political struggle between midwives, who only dealt with women, and doctors who treated everyone, because the doctors wanted their monopoly.

    Many women died of infection–like Charlotte Bronte–or nearly died like Mary Shelley. Women’s health had always been a political football in the supposedly “civilized” Christian era. Many midwives (always specialists in women’s health) were burned as witches throughout modern history.

    Now we know about bacteria and viruses and we are much more aware of unconscious infection, but childbirth can still be a big deal–especially for older women, very young women, the ill, the malnourished, the poor, the mothers of multiple babies. It seems to me incredible that anyone without a uterus would try to dictate what a woman should do with hers.

    So I am appalled that abortion remains under attack–and that birth control in America has been impeded. We came so far with so much struggle. To give it back now is no less than an assault on women’s health.

    Of course babies are precious and should be cherished. Nobody doubts that. But should a woman be forced by the law to give birth if she has health issues, a dead baby, twins or triplets, or can’t get to a hospital or must be accompanied but a male relative–who may be at war or dead or unwilling? Fundamentalist Muslims, like fundamentalist Christians would deny her that.

    No wonder the late great Florynce Kennedy said: If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/if-men-could-get-pregnant_b_82467.html

  29. Repack Rider says:
    February 16, 2011 at 10:41 am

    If it were both illegal and unnecessary, it would not be just.

    QED. It is not a just war.

  30. Frank DiSalle says:
    February 16, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Thank you for your input, Ms Jong.

    Clever, Repack, really clever.
    /sarcasm

  31. The Dark Avenger says:
    February 16, 2011 at 11:12 am

    When you have a uterus, you’ll be qualified to tell women what they can do with theirs, Mr. DiSalle.

    In case you missed the point in the first place.

  32. LongHairedWeirdo says:
    February 16, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    I have seen soi disant conservatives claiming Iraq was a just war. It doesn’t match any of the “just war” theories, unless the authors making such claims are simply inventing new “just war” theories out of whole cloth.

    Near as I can tell, to a modern US conservative, a war is a “just war” if:
    1) it is, or was, really popular,
    2) a lot of Very Serious People claimed it was necessary with Very Serious Looks on their faces, and
    3) if it pisses off liberals and gets soi disant conservatives cheering USA! USA!