Skip to main content
HF 7 says someone fearing death or injury to a fetus and/or its the mother can use deadly force to prevent it. The belief - fearing death or injury - doesn't even need to be reasonable, only the force.
It isn't much of a stretch to say that a doctor with a poised scalpel is about to inflict death or injury. If your doubt is about the place an HF 7 assailant might be standing, consider an upset husband or sibling or parent in a waiting room just outside the "OR" door.
(One may not even need HF 153. For example, don't some states treat death or injury to a fetus as a crime already in cases where it is coupled with another offense, say, a robbery?)
Had a Scott Roeder entered Dr. Tiller's offices, say, to ask what was happening there and was told there was a procedure in progress, and was driven by his conscience to enter the surgery, confront the doctor on the spot and kill him, mightn't this language give him a pretty solid defense?
I read the bill. I'm a lawyer. (Though retired from practice, I can still read.)
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under the bridges of Paris. Anatole France
by TRPChicago on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 07:56:07 PM PST
[ Parent ]
One the other hand, any clinic employee, fearing that a felon-ious assault is about to occur in their place of business, is under this law, free to use deadly force defending themselves.
Because this law allows (or is intended to allow) the terroristic murder of abortion providers on mere suspicion by any member of the public, it also seems to allow said providers to defend themselves or each other under the same "suspicion" rationale.
"He walked into my clinic and I feared he was going to commit a forcible felony, so I shot and killed him," would be a legal defense under this law.
As always, republicans spend their days thinking up ways to increase the total amount of terrorism, murder, pain, suffering and death on the world. It is their raison d'etre.
by Captain Frogbert on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:23:55 PM PST
Your very appropriate - and I think, correct - analysis reminds of the interview the other day of the legislator who has an amendment pending to further enhance the permissive gun laws of Texas. Pushed during the telecast by a pro-control advocate, the guy said guns would be allowed on campuses and bars ... but, expressly, not at football games.
Gee, wonder why not?
by TRPChicago on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:36:14 PM PST
Apparently it's all good. We have nothing to worry about.
I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
but I fear we will remain Democrats.
by twigg on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:37:58 PM PST
This sort of thing is going to get someone killed, maybe several someones. Even if the implications discussed are inaccurate, it seems more than likely that they are intended to plant notions of legality to reduce the perceived constraints on the use of deadly force. It occurs to me that the right has historically be more willing to threaten and use terrorism and violence. However, the old adage about becoming just like your enemy comes to mind. Guns are not the limited to right wing nuts. How long before this sort of 1% solution stuff spreads? The old maps used to draw dragons at the margins because they thought going too far that way would lead to unimaginable horrors. The same thing is true here, unimaginable horrors lie along that path.
by salmo on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 09:36:40 PM PST
for going into a clinic where abortions are performed? Could a boyfriend or father claim justifiable homicide to preventing the mother from having an abortion? And even though I am not a lawyer, it seems the language of this bill allows for that defense even though the fetus did not survive the death of the mother. Just wondering about how stupid the Rethugs can be.
by nwsound on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:40:07 PM PST
is their anger is directed more at the abortion provider than the woman deciding to have the abortion,
The out and out anti-abortion laws always singled out the abortion provider, not the woman.
And while a close reading could allow them to shoot the woman, then THEY are killing the baby, so that doesn't quite work for the defense.
It's part of the attitude that women are unable to make informed decisions for themselves, so it's the abortion providers who are targetted.
HylasBrook @62 - fiesty, fiery, and fierce
by HylasBrook on Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 10:27:17 AM PST
If the mother wants to carry the fetus to term, but loses the pregnancy because her abusive boyfriend beats her up, and knocks her down a flight of stairs - yeah that should be a crime, and maybe a bigger one than doing the same thing to his not pregnant girlfriend. If the woman's sibling walks in on her boyfriend beating her up, and shoots the boyfriend dead for beating up his/her pregnant sister, that should be justified. As long as the "in the commission of a crime" (which intentionally harming the mother is) language stays in such laws I don't have a problem with them, as long as abortion remains legal.
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
by Futuristic Dreamer on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 09:51:30 PM PST
-- Sinclair Lewis
Arizona: Land of Ihre Papiere, Bitte.
by Dunvegan on Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 02:11:38 AM PST
by Futuristic Dreamer on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 12:38:58 AM PST
by you on soon
Or you may make changes below and Preview again, or Cancel this comment.
Donate to support Daily Kos.
© Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified
“Kos” and “Daily Kos” are registered trademarks of Kos Media, LLC