South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murder of Abortion Doctors
Proponents and opponents of abortion rights argue in front of the Supreme Court during the March for Life Jan. 24, 2011, in Washington.
/ Getty Images
Updated at 7:45 p.m. ET
A bill scheduled for debate on the floor of the South Dakota House of Representatives Wednesday 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 Tuesday. "It would actually legalize murder."
The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Phil Jensen, defended the proposed legislation by telling the Reuters news agency Tuesday that the bill would prevent prosecutors from trying to convict people who use lethal force to protect their pregnant family members from attackers.
"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."
The Associated Press reported that the measure originally would have allowed pregnant women to use force to protect their unborn children. 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.
Jensen told Reuters that he expected critics of the bill to try and amend the measure during the floor debate. Debate was scheduled to begin Tuesday, but the House delayed it until Wednesday, the AP reported early Tuesday evening.
South Dakota enacted laws in 2006 and 2008 banning most abortions unless they put a woman's life at risk. Voters overturned both laws at the polls.
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- Obama prom pictures surface 130 Comments
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen.
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 284 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Now, some unions upset over Obamacare
- Rand Paul uses 2016 bully pulpit to push Obama on drones
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave 131 Comments
What does this tell the people voted into office? The PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THESE DRACONIAN LAWS. That doesnt stop the Conservative crazies from trying over and over. Lets see, first law gets voted down, second law gets voted down, doesnt that tell something?
The other bad thing is that with states economies being as bad as they are, you can bet South Dakota has a deficit and this idiot is wasting taxpayers money with this dangerous madness.
But the bad part is that he will probably retire in the same job. The Pols continously got agaist the will of the public and yet they keep getting votes.
Maybe Americans suffer from an abused wife syndrome.
Please quit dodging.
You asked for a federal government source, which I did (Congressional Bill, Libary of Congress) that stated that the Compact document was a foundation source, which I did.
======
Well, sure, Empire, but the Library of Congress link was the author of the book's comment, and not theirs.
And the Congressional statement was made in 2003 under a religious-right government.
Neither is relevant.
As well, I continue to ask, and you continue to dodge how a pledge of allegiance to the King of England could be a "founding document" for the US.
You're desperate, and grasping at straws.
Until then, keep clinging to your bible. :)
=======
They stated that in 2003, dimwit. That means nothing.
It's mentioned in a Government Legislation, on the .gov library of congress website......Now the Libary of Congess is "not legitimate" ?
========
Have YOU ever submitted anything to the Library of Congress, Empress? They simply catalog whatever you've published and sent in, including the description the submitter provides.
Please. Educate yourself.
Please explain how a document pledging allegiance to the King of England could POSSIBLY be considered a "founding document" for the United States of America.
Read that paragraph several times. I'll accept your admission of defeat once you do.
LMAO!!!!
Again, you and your weak attempts to put words in my mouth. You're pathetic! "Just the fact that you don't even know that this country existed before the Constitution"????? You're an ass!
Jamestown did not found the US - they were simply settlers. How difficult is that for you to understand? They had nothing to do with "founding" our government.
Like I said, find a LEGITIMATE website - since you say you have some - and let me see it. I'm talking something from the federal government acknowledging it as a founding document. We're talking official history, not your made-up "founders".
But to think a 5th-grade textbook is what you trot out as "proof"??? That's HILARIOUS!!!
Jamestown did not found the US - they were simply settlers. How difficult is that for you to understand? They had nothing to do with "founding" our government.
Like I said, find a LEGITIMATE website - since you say you have some - and let me see it. I'm talking something from the federal government acknowledging it as a founding document.