Skip to main content

View Diary: The 'pro-life' bill to legalize murder (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If they had wanted to say no tummy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, Spud1, irishwitch

    punching, with higher penalties, the sensible solution is a statute which says that a crime of force or violence committed against a pregnant woman is also deemed committed  separately and in addition against the unborn she is carrying.  They didn't and have never bothered even to try to claim what they meant is that an attack on a woman is a twofer, rather than coming up with language which treats the unborn as entirely separate in the law.

    •  I don't disagree with that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spud1, Into The Woods, lgmcp

      but that analysis suggests a different critique and response than "they are legally declaring open season on abortion providers," which is more easily refuted because they aren't.  What the law says does matter.  So does its "unintended" effect.

      They tortured people
      to get false confessions
      to fraudulently justify
      invasion of Iraq!

      Never let people forget this.

      by Seneca Doane on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:53:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Including it as "justifiable" makes it lawful (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Spud1, irishwitch

        as I commented in that diary.

        http://www.dailykos.com/...
        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        The acts currently listed in the law, otherwise not "lawful" are made "lawful" by their definition and inclusion in this law - turning what would otherwise be "murder" into "justifiable homicide" if the defined elements and preconditions are met.

        The argument that an act would need to be otherwise "lawful" to be a "justifiable homicide" would mean there would be no need for this defense.  

        It is still homicide, but justifiable and thus lawful.  

        Killing to protect a fetus from imminent threat of harm that could cause death (even if it is a lawful abortion) is homicide.  This bill would classify it as justifiable.  

        There will be no "season" and likely no "hunting permits" required.

        But it turns killing abortion Drs and attending staff from a crime to justifiable homicide.  

        If health care is not basic necessity, try living without it.

        by Into The Woods on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:21:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No it really doesn't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Into The Woods

          I'll be happy to go through the statutory analysis with you, but not while I'm taking a brief break from work.  Please reply to this to remind me to do so this evening.  As I recall the word placement, it's not even ambiguous, but I'll re-check later.

          They tortured people
          to get false confessions
          to fraudulently justify
          invasion of Iraq!

          Never let people forget this.

          by Seneca Doane on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:04:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What is Lawful Defense (0+ / 0-)

            If the killing of another in defense of my own person is already lawful, there would be no need for a law deeming it justifiable homicide.  

            This law defines the conditions under which I can kill another lawfully.  

            Now South Dakota, by statute or case law, may have additional conditions that must be met before the conditions described in this statute can be measured.

            But those conditions could have quite a different slant if and when applied to a circumstance where the threatened party was actually a fetus within a third party who had consented to the lawful medical procedure by which the fetus would be "threatened" under the terms of this law.  

            If the act of killing a Dr is not covered because it is not "lawful" (unless made so by this amendment) then how does the current law deal with the act of killing an abusive husband or stranger, which but for the application of the current law (and their presenting an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm) would be an unlawful act?

            I don't see how this law can work if you interpret the "lawful defense" language as it looks like you are suggesting.

            I also wonder whether SD really restricts it's classification of "justifiable" to defense of family.  If I kill a person who is attacking a my daughter under the exact same circumstances but change the woman to a stranger, somehow the legal result is changed?  That would surprise me.  

            FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand th
            e 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.

            If health care is not basic necessity, try living without it.

            by Into The Woods on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 04:19:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "if committed ... in the lawful defense" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Into The Woods

              Abortion is a lawful option for a woman.  Because she can invite an abortion, providing the abortion is lawful.  The non-viable fetus has no right to life under the law.  Defending the fetus against an abortion is thus not "the lawful defense of such person."  The homicide of a person providing a lawful abortion is thus not "lawful."  Under this definition it is therefore not "justifiable."

              Reasonable laypersons (and ones rendered unreasonable by insanity and the like) could understandably think otherwise, though.  That is the problem here.

              They tortured people
              to get false confessions
              to fraudulently justify
              invasion of Iraq!

              Never let people forget this.

              by Seneca Doane on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:34:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ok. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Seneca Doane

                The "lawful" distinction then applies to interpreting when "non-viable fetus" turns into "unborn child" that would be covered by the proposed amendment.

                That, at least, survives the straight-face test when saying the horrors warned of in the amendment were not intended.  

                But as you say, what it would open up in the minds of the public, especially those segments trained and eager to exploit any vagueness in the law to sow fear amongst those providing or seeking abortions, would still be a problem.  

                More exact  drafting (within the existing problematic structure) would then have provided:

                or to unlawfully 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 do some great and unlawful personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

                Thanks.  Others lacked the skill or patience to explain why they thought the alarm was excessive.  I appreciate your excercise of both.

                If health care is not basic necessity, try living without it.

                by Into The Woods on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 12:20:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you too - and I agree that the drafting was (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Into The Woods, Clem Yeobright

                  poor, even aside from my disagreement with its substance.  Asking for it to be fixed might help separate those who are sincerebut misguided from those who are happy to seethis used as an instrument of terror.

                  They tortured people
                  to get false confessions
                  to fraudulently justify
                  invasion of Iraq!

                  Never let people forget this.

                  by Seneca Doane on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 03:14:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've Been There, Done That (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Clem Yeobright

                    In slighty different circumstances.  

                    Had a client that was being drawn in unnecessarily to an anti-abortion bill.  Talked with the author and supporters offering language that would correct and clarify the issue.

                    They basically admitted to me that it was language from their national organization, they knew it was overly broad and ambiguous, and that's exactly how they wanted it.

                    Since then I've seen the same tactic used over and over to the point where I no longer look at it as 'sloppy', but intentional.  

                    In some ways the black/white statements that this will legali ze the murder of Drs who provide abortions end up being the counter-weight to that intentional mis-drafting.  

                    Not an easy ground on which to have rational discussion.

                    If health care is not basic necessity, try living without it.

                    by Into The Woods on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 07:38:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, they're treating the fetus as (0+ / 0-)

      a separate entity.  It is one.  It just does not have the right to life prior to viability.  Specifically, it does not have the right to continue to gestate within the pregnant woman.  Laurence Tribe has argued that if and when fetuses can be transferred into artificial wombs through a surgical procedure as safe as abortion, then there will be no right to abort a fetus, just a right to remove it from one's womb.

      They tortured people
      to get false confessions
      to fraudulently justify
      invasion of Iraq!

      Never let people forget this.

      by Seneca Doane on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:37:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Science (25)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site