Quantcast

South Dakota GOP pushes bill to legalize ‘homicide’ in defense of the unborn

By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:42 EDT
google plus icon
sixweekfetus
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

“Justifiable” homicide is usually claimed in self defense cases, and in particular home invasions that end up with a dead burglar. You could say it’s one of the many things that’s big in Texas.

But in South Dakota, a group of Republican state legislators have crafted a bill that would expand the legal definition of “justifiable homicide” in a way that’s plain and unambiguous: they’re trying to legalize the murder of abortion doctors.

In House Bill 1171, which cleared committee recently and will go to a full vote by the legislature soon, their redefinition is clear.

It states: “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.”

It was enough to draw out a feature story from Mother Jones, which noted that along with the principle sponsor, state Rep. Phil Jensen, 22 other state representatives and four state senators were also attached to the text.

Despite appearances, Jensen was not the author of language redefining “justifiable” homicide. The legislature’s website noted that the bill had been “extensively amended (hoghoused) and may no longer be consistent with the original intention of the sponsor.”

But in a hearing last week, “[a] parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law,” Mother Jones‘s Kate Sheppard wrote.

Doctors and clinics that provide reproductive health services have in the past been targeted by conservative extremists. The most recent high-profile assassination, against Dr. George Tiller, happened in May 2009. He was shot in his church, in Wichita, by a man named Scott Roeder.

Tiller was one of the nation’s only providers of later-term abortions, which remains a rare and legally restricted procedure. He was also a frequent target of Fox News conservative opinion host Bill O’Reilly, who’d for years referred to Tiller on his show as “Tiller the baby killer.”

Roeder was sentenced to life in prison and has since developed a cult following among some extremists online. Though he was said to have been a “lone wolf” -style gunman, his connections to the pro-life movement became abundantly clear.

And today, it seems, from at least one sector of the South Dakota legislature, the message is that the law should make exception for men of his ilk.

There is only one clinic in the state that offers abortion services.

Image: A six-week old human fetus. Credit: Wikimedia commons.

Stephen C. Webster
Stephen C. Webster
Stephen C. Webster is the senior editor of Raw Story, and is based out of Austin, Texas. He previously worked as the associate editor of The Lone Star Iconoclast in Crawford, Texas, where he covered state politics and the peace movement’s resurgence at the start of the Iraq war. Webster has also contributed to publications such as True/Slant, Austin Monthly, The Dallas Business Journal, The Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Weekly, The News Connection and others. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenCWebster.
 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
  • http://www.facebook.com/rambotheshark Robin Cooper

    These pro-lifers sure like to kill a whole lot.

  • David R Velasquez

    “Christians” often like to justify violence and bigotry.

    In that respect only the Amish have any cred.

  • Anonymous

    If you read the words carefully, they say the homicide would be justifiable only if committed by the same “person” who is under attack. Evidently the anti-choice people don’t read and write very well. Funny that they’re the same ones who say they believe in strict interpretation of laws.

  • piltdown

    I’ll give the Quaker some credit, too.

    But that’s about it.

  • cosliberal

    Won’t matter if this abomination passes and gets signed into law. Some wacko will shoot an abortion doc, and then be acquitted by a jury of his peers (knuckle dragging morons)….

  • http://www.petersaxemusic.com Peter Saxe

    Reasonable people need to label this as domestic terrorism and use the patriot act against the terrorists. I’d like to watch the GOP react to that.

  • Anonymous

    It already is considered domestic terrorism.
    The gop has already reacted to that language, and they’re in very deep denial.

  • Anonymous

    Talk about an ignorant bunch of clowns.
    Pro life!! But if you decide to be a doctor we might have to kill you!!

  • Anonymous

    The late George Carlin explains the “Conservative” idea of “Sanctity of Life” – (George had a gift for cutting through the B.S.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

  • Anonymous

    I did steal one of his points. I think he says: Grow up to be a doctor and we might have to kill you.”

    That clip and one of his on religion are keeps for life. He destroys the right wingnuts!

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    There isn’t anything about legalizing the killing abortion doctors in this bill. Neither is the bill written in such a fashion as to single out abortion doctors nor protect people who kill the abortion doctors. Only the Dem Biased Media has put such a twist on the bill.

    This law will simply make it legal to defend with lethal force an attack on any pregnant woman, which may endanger the life of her unborn child. Most lethal force laws are written in a fashion you can only use lethal force to defend yourself or your own family. So if you carry a firearm and shoot an intruder in your home, you are protected by law.

    However, if you were in the grocery store and shot a guy threatening to kill a pregnant woman he is holding hostage, if the person is not related to you, and you are not in direct danger, you are not supposed to interfere, even if the person is defenseless.

    If abortion is not illegal (a felony) in the state of South Dakota, the the abortion doctor would not be committing a felony against the defenseless woman or baby.

    This is a perfect example of the EXTREME TWISTS MEDIA OUTLETS USE TO MISCONSTRUE FACTS IN FAVOR OF THE DEMS. This article is complete B.S.

    What if your wife was pregnant and held at gun or knife point? What if in that same area was a person, legally authorized to carry a firearm? Would you not want that person to defend your defenseless wife and baby? Sure you would, especially if you weren’t there to do it yourself.

    Yet right now, most defense laws and laws regarding lethal force only protect the person “legally authorized to carry a firearm” if they are protecting themselves or their family from eminent danger. If this new law isn’t passed, it is illegal for the person “legally authorized to carry a firearm” to defend your wife and unborn baby. Your wife and unborn baby could be shot or stabbed to death before the police arrive, and there is a person who could have stopped it, but the current law will not protect this person if he/she does act to protect your family.

    WIVES BEWARE: Anyone who opposes this bill is basically saying: “Na, just go ahead and let the criminal kill my wife and unborn baby”

  • Anonymous

    It constantly amazes me that the right is all for “order,”, but when it comes down to their actions, they are all designed to create as much chaos as possible. They must really WANT this country to be as much of a disaster as possible. I think the time is coming to where we need to make being a republican lawmaker ILLEGAL.

    Republicans really hate Americans, but especially American WOMAN. IT seems like 90% of their goals are to make sure women have NO health care, NO protections, NO rights, NOT ability to decide for themselves what THEIR lives should be about. These people suck shit, and that is the NICEST thing I can think of to say about them. What a party of shit headed assholes.

    Women of SD (and indeed, all of America), you had better stand up for yourselves. If you don’t tell these fuckers that YOU are not going to be treated this way, they will keep on doing it, and things will get worse and worse for you AND your kids. These republicans are the single most dangerous people in the country. They FAR outweigh any damage possibly done by the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, and every communist in the world. So much for FREEDOM if these scum keep getting their way. I feel sorry for those who live in SD, you are being run by SADISTS and authoritarians. May you rise up and tell them all to go to hell, and soon. Otherwise, it’s YOU who will be going there.

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    Can you read? Where does it say “Abortion Doctors can be murdered” in this amended version of the law?

    Do you think that women aren’t backing this law? This new law will provide additional protection to women and their unborn babies, but doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not they have the right to an abortion.

    DEMOCRATS: READ THE FACTS! Stop believing what your media outlets report, and read the actual bill. You only show your ignorance when you base your belief on what is reported in the media instead of what is actually happening.

  • samhoustonTX

    If the ignorant preachers could keep their sheeple under control (e.g., no abortions), they would not have to use the civil law system.

  • Anonymous

    Poor you.

  • Anonymous

    I’m for “abortion” in a pass aggressive state: that means the christers will have to go to their “heaven” immediately and leave us the fuck alone. Jimmy Jones Kool-Aid or stone each other to death, I don’t care.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FPBFO6RC5R2HHIP3VXSFU2RZQA mjj

    Pro life is an oxymoron when it comes to Christians and republicans. They are pro life just up until it comes time to send little Johnny and Suzi off to fight an undeclared war in support of fat cat corporations.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OFLKWWXX4FPZ5VKIKQXQRB2JII Joel

    “This law will simply make it legal to defend with lethal force an attack on any pregnant woman, which may endanger the life of her unborn child”

    Those are your words Bamajr.

    What part of your own sentence do you not understand?

    Would not anti-abortionists deem an abortion as a lethal attack?

    Who is full of B.S.?

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, you stupid Dems. Read it, stupid Dems. Youse Dems are stupid. Dems are desroying the world. Dems are stupid, too.

  • Anonymous

    Interesting… except, as written, it could also be used in defense of a person who kills a Republican lawmaker since many of those Republican lawmaker bills may be “any attempt to murder such person” like when they try to side with the insurance industry as it denies a person’s coverage, or “to harm the unborn child of such person” when Republicans try to cut prenatal care.

    I say pass the law… it’ll be open season for murdering Republican lawmakers. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/15/south-dakota-gop-pushes-bill-to-legalize-homicide-in-defense-of-the-unborn/

  • Anonymous

    The Christian Taliban, trying to create Sharia Law in America. These anti-American goons ought to be dropped off in rural Pakistan.

  • Anonymous

    ‘bagger / neoCON recipe for “stupid”

    add a lot of guns, a lot of nuts & a little “justification”.

  • Anonymous

    Reading would only confuse them, since their pee-brain minds are already made up. And “made” up they are.

    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” – Charles Darwin

  • Anonymous

    Maybe North Korea?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Armstrong/138701434 Matt Armstrong

    Well they make good oatmeal, thats for sure.

  • Anonymous

    my New Year’s resolution was to “give up” on trolls.

  • Anonymous

    my New Year’s resolution was to “give up” on trolls.

  • David R Velasquez

    It is basically declaring open season on abortion doctors and their staff.

  • Anonymous

    The liberal media myth lives………in just another wingnut post.

    Dem media? Stop watching Fox, it will make you even dumber.

  • Dakotahgeo

    The peacemaker in me tells me not to comment but this may be one of the best ideas yet. For every Doctor killed, let’s take out three GOP/Teabagger Congress members. Now I ask you, would that be fair, or legal? Probably not, if you asked them. Such stupidity… only from SD!

  • Anonymous

    What part of ‘Thou shall not kill/murder’ is hard to comprehend? .

  • Anonymous

    Human filth disguised as politicians. O’ Brien and other Final Solutionists should be looking over their shoulders night and day. ” A chacun son tour!”

  • tbl92666

    The pro-life cabal wouldn’t have schlepped all the way to the South Dakota statehouse, to testify for the bill, if they didn’t think they were getting something out of it.

  • Dakotahgeo

    Somehow, I think you posted this in jest. Either that or you are a Republican who is a Teabagger wannabe.

  • Anonymous

    Is this the considered reply of a woman or her Lord and Master? Bronze age fairy tales have had their day. So long male chauvinist pigs!!

  • Dakotahgeo

    Methinks you are just a whole lot of WHACKY!!!

  • Anonymous

    Atta boy!

  • Anonymous

    So much for Freedom of the Press. Thank you Dr. Josef Goebbels; KINDER – KUCHER – KIRCHE = K.K.K.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6FSQPG5G2N5SYVOMSZ7SRXG57I Angry Liberal

    ain’t “bamajr” a mooslum name??? hey, I’m just a dumb democrat, but the librul media fox news told me all mooslums are terrorists. Are you trying to subject me to sharia law? I think I’m scared of you.

    here’s a clue dumbass – maybe YOU should stop believing what your media outlets report, and STFU!

  • Anonymous

    Is Justin Beiber still there?

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    Still You!

    Read the law. It states: “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.”

    If abortion is legal in South Dakota, then the Abortion Clinic and it’s doctors would not be committing a FELONY, now would they? Thus protection under this law would not be extended to a person murdering an abortion doctor or staff. People here only jumped to that conclusion based on the B.S. in the article.

    However, if abortion is illegal in South Dakota, then Abortion Clinic and it’s doctors would be committing a FELONY.

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    Sure they are getting something out of it… the life of the mother and the unborn baby, but not as far as legalizing the murder of doctors and staff.

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    Looks to me like Freedom of the Press was upheld. The press reported the story with the angle they wanted to report it, without any requirement of truth. The story was still published and we are all now all commenting on our opinions. Truth or Fiction is not a requirement under Freedom of the Press.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SIHAPY2KWRNTJO4IYIZTRFBSOA Bob

    Perhaps you should click the link to the bill and read the second section: “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.” So basically, the husband/father of the fetus can go ahead and kill the provider and claim that the mother’s decision to undergo the procedure was going to do great bodily harm. So put that in your snarky pipe and smoke it.

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    I read and research for myself, so I can come up with my own opinions. I don’t need Fox or any other media telling me what they want me to believe. I can form my own opinions without the help of anyone else.

    If “Dem Media” is something that came from Fox, I wouldn’t have heard it there. I very rarely watch any news on TV, much less Fox. Fox may be known for the comedy they show, but I don’t see anything of value coming from their news (or any other news station for that matter).

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    Where does this come from?

  • Anonymous

    I know, you can’t help it if you’re a Fox drone. Just sad for you and no one else.

  • http://www.rawstory.com/ hounddogg

    dood…you’re the one who has a serious reading comprehension problem…READ THE BILL:

    ” FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the 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.<<>>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. <<>> 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.”

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    It sure sounds to me like the extreme in this thread of comments is coming from the Dems. I thought extremist ideas were supposed to come from the GOP.

    Personally, I’m more Libertarian than Republican, though I don’t like any major parties. I don’t believe there should be political parties. Americans should be able to vote on who our leaders will be, based on their track record and how that track record compares to our own beliefs, feelings and opinions, not whether they are from the GOP or are a Dem.

    Neither do I believe any media outlet should be able to report news as anything other than fact, especially when hiding behind Freedom of the Press. There is a reason it is called a News Story. Part of it is news, most of it is story, regardless of which political party is reporting what. I think media outlets should have to differentiate between fact and opinion. No one can make an informed decision when they are informed incorrectly.

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    I’ve read it.

    Where is the permission given to murder the abortion doctors?

    Is abortion legal in South Dakota or not?

  • Anonymous

    It seems the alternative universe is overtaking reality. Batshit Crazy is all the rage now days. Geesh…

  • mjcc1987

    Elections in fact have consequences so those that did not participate in 2010 hopefully understand that the statement “it doesn’t make a difference, their all the same” and “my vote won’t count” is absolutely full of shit. Hugh steaming piles of shit.

  • Guest

    Ah, such a noble resolution. And so, so difficult to keep..

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    What does assuming make you?

    You assume I’m basing my opinions on biased media outlets. I find my news online. Then I research what the actual facts are. If you did more of that you would have already known, I don’t watch news on TV and especially not FOX.

    I never called you a dumb democrat, but if you are admitting to it, I guess, now I know.

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    I fully back additional education funding, cause you need it. I can’t be a “Fox Drone” if I don’t watch Fox. What do you watch CBS or ABC? So does that make you a CBS or ABC drone? If you don’t watch either one, can I still call you a CBS or ABC drone.

  • Lincoln Paradox

    There’s a big difference between someone who subscribes to a “culture of life” and a pro-lifer.

    A culture of life denounces abortion, the death penalty and euthanasia. Through its intent, the philosophy would also denounce murdering abortion clinic staff.

    This is all a stunt. The political equivalent of counting coup.

    Unless it passes, then the GOP has to explain themselves after the handful of abortion providers in SD are killed that very night.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/KNS2UDSXYOFR5C3KCW2SYW3FLI Dolly Dagger

    Those who give the Amish “cred” don’t really know anything about the Amish. There is incest, violence against women and children and animal cruelty in the Amish community. There is also murder, mental illness and drug abuse. The Amish are just really good at hiding their evil behind their reputation and “freedom of religion”.

  • http://www.rawstory.com/ hounddogg

    it looks like I’m wasting my time with you…

    “22-16-34.<<>>committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child “

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    I thought about bringing that up… but thought pointing out more ignorance would lead further away from the actual topic.

  • Guest

    Pro Life! just ordinary murderers.

  • http://bamajr.com/ bamajr

    In my opinion, this is true in some cases and false in others.

    First, I believe everyone who is entitled to vote should.

    Second, there has never been two politicians on the same ticked, exactly the same.

    Third, yes elections do have consequences.

    Your vote counts when casting your vote has a direct impact on the outcome. So, when you vote on just about anything other than who should be president, your vote counts.

    However, until the electoral college is removed from existence for the presidential race, your vote doesn’t count. Your vote may have been considered, but it is not counted towards the outcome. Only the votes cast by the electoral college determine who will be president, and the electoral college does not have to vote based on any determining factor.

  • 7rob7

    Oh, waaaaaaaaaaay beyond whacky and eyeball-deep in unhinged.

    Wow.

  • Anonymous

    Reasonable people? How about the Justice Departments in both South Dakota and Washington. Murdering an abortion doctor or any one else is a crime. We are a national of law and this idea that we only have to follow the laws we like is dangerous. So far it appears that Washington has looked the other way. The current laws on the books need to be enforced and the legislators in South Dakota need to be informed that they cannot make up laws to fit their religious beliefs. THAT is against the law.

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    A combination of the two would maximize entertainment value and assure a more likely positive outcome. You know, in case they fuck up the Kool-Aid or the stones are just too dang small.

  • Anonymous

    THE F-ING MEDIA IS NOT I REPEAT NOT LIBERAL YOU TWAT!!

    You’re just as dim witted as the rest of you red necks in bible country. This bill has nothing to do with protecting someone from assault in broad daylight or in public in general. This bill essentially makes it “just” to use violence against a woman’s right to choose and a Doctor’s right to follow through on her choice to have an abortion. What, you think doctor’s walk around town advertising abortion and forcing themselves in to people’s homes or under pregnant women’s dresses to perform this operations? That’s YOUR twisted logic. If someone commits a crime, whether that be to a pregnant person, a homeless person, or any Joe Schmo on the street, it’s the duty of citizens to attempt to stop him/her from causing further damage and hand over the responsibility to LAW ENFORCEMENT to take them to jail and have the COURTS decide their punishment therein! It’s NOT our duty as citizens to just SHOOT anyone we like because you backwards tea fuckers think it’s part of your 2nd amendment “right” to use your weapons!

    The law states “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.”

    ^^ Note the the death of the unborn child. That implicates abortion clinics and the Doctor’s who perform them. It’s a woman’s fucking right to choose WHAT she wants to do with her body WHEN she wants to do it. If she doesn’t want that child don’t force it upon her! Don’t even try to turn it into the Doctor’s are the perpetrators because they aren’t. It’s YOU PEOPLE who claim you’re ALL “pro life” when you’re clearly HYPOCRITES! HYPOCRITES! Doctor’s have a sanctity to life just as unborn children do.

  • Anonymous

    Hmm I have an idea, let’s go to the bible for an answer shall we? The only thing in the bible about abortion (or termination of a fetus) the ONLY THING is … and this the truth I am not making this shit up:
    Exodus 21:22
    “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.”
    Well there ya go problem solved.

  • Anonymous

    wow you are so stupid it hurts. How do you interpret this…

    “22-16-34.<<>>committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child ”

    as anything but its okay to kill doctors.

  • Anonymous

    Dude CBS NBC, and ABC are all owned by giant RIGHT WING Corporations. Think about that.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6VIII2XPU4HUPLANTLEJGSYN7A jARED

    I suppose in the end, this depends on whether the left gets to pick a target for legal murder on the right indiscriminately. Is that the agreement? Where do we vote on the list?

  • Anonymous

    Reading comprehension FAIL!
    “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, ”

    No mention of felony there, jughead.

  • http://twitter.com/LoryAndAnEaglet julia hart

    actually it may be written like this: “while resisting an attempt to harm” that person’s unborn child or the unborn child of that person’s spouse, partner, parent, or child”.

  • Anonymous

    the life of the mother and FETUS, Cletus!

    Babies are, by definition, born, as in “we’re having a baby”, not “we have a baby” when the fetus hasn’t been born yet.

    And it’s no of your business to make medical decisions for other people.

  • Anonymous

    “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, ”
    Nothing there about felony.
    Murder and assault are already illegal.

  • Anonymous

    1st Contact! After the Pony Express shut down we lost touch with much of the American Outback. Great to hear from South Dakota-thought you volks may have moved back to Germany. You guys need anything, musket balls, wagon wheels, beaver pelts, rath of god teaching aids…

  • Anonymous

    You have a serious reading comprehension deficiency. It says it in the bill. Not in full disclosure; however, WHEN “in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, CHILD….. or the UNBORN CHILD of any such enumerated person…. to do some great personal injury….”

    ANY judge in this state would interpret those words as such that whomever was brought to court for attempted murder of or murder of a Doctor who performed an abortion would be released from all charges. It doesn’t NEED to say “it’s okay to murder abortion doctors;” all it NEEDS to say are those words. People will interpret them in their favor. END OF STORY.

    And the part of abortion being legal in SD or not is irrelevant right now. This law hasn’t even been brought to the floor of the house yet.

  • Anonymous

    angry maybe but surely not a liberal

    your moniker is a total lie too.

    Cut it out stupid hypocrite!

  • Anonymous

    According to this law, it looks like it would be okay to justify homicide of all the right wing tea baggers causing harm to Progressive and Independent citizens and their children…. not to say I’d condone that.. Just saying…

  • Anonymous

    “Think about that. ”

    Whoa dude! You are asking WAY too much.

  • Anonymous

    I hate to disagree with such a clearly open minded individual, but let’s get something straight here. This is nothing more than a way for those who “hate big government” to shove theirs right in the faces of women. It has nothing to do with protecting the mother at all. In fact, most of the “pro life” crowd couldn’t care less about the life of the mother. Damn near every bill that comes along to force them into childbirth proves that.

    And women are the ones who are set to lose their right to control their own bodies if this piece of crap passes. No, I DON’T think that most women are for this law. From what I’ve seen at damn near every protest the “pro lifers” throw, it’s 99% MEN at these things. Makes me think that it’s about FAR more than protecting the unborn. Like making sure that men get to rule over women no matter what. Most women have been in situations where they had to worry about this, men have NEVER been in it. It’s not OUR bodies that get warped, ruined, and in some cases, DIE from childbirth, is it? Never has been, never will be. And that is why I really don’t think that men have ANY place in this decision. Add onto that the fact that more American men REFUSE to take care of their children, I really don’t see where you or I have ANY business telling any woman what she has to do, one way or the other. It’s HER choice, it’s her body, and frequently, it’s she who will have to raise that kid by herself.

    This is just another cynical, back handed way for politicians to play hypocrite and shove their demands down the throats of others. And how much do you want to bet that each of these GOP jerk offs ran on a platform of getting gov’t out of health care, and off your back? The hypocrisy is amazing. And this law will just be used as an excuse to do even more KILLING. It’s ALL about DEATH for the “pro lifers”, isn’t it? They are so upset about the unborn, but once you are breathing, FUCK YOU. These people don’t know the first thing about LIFE. And they sure don’t respect it once it’s out of the womb.

  • Anonymous

    Wow yet another corporate shill

  • Anonymous

    How can you be pro-life and for the death penalty?

  • http://twitter.com/sphagan Stephen Hagan

    Read the law. It states: “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.”

    There is a series of ORs there, those are not ANDs those are ORs thus mutually exclusive.
    If the person is 1. attempting to murder such person OR 2. harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in death of the child OR 3. to commit any felony.

  • Anonymous

    And that’s probably the next step. Take a look at the supporters of this thing. All anti-abortionists.

  • http://twitter.com/sphagan Stephen Hagan

    Double post. apologies

  • ProChoiceGrandma

    I have an even better one, johnniefavorite!

    I saved this comment by rjwalker some time ago :
    “God says that if a husband suspects his wife has been unfaithful, she is to be given “bitter waters” to induce a miscarriage – aka an abortion. See, Numbers 5:11-31
    The “abortion is a sin” folks are telling us God is a sinner.”

    27 And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the (bitter) water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration (curse or swearword) among her people.

    The GOP/TeaParty’s most useful rabble-rousing tool is anti-choice rhetoric to win the votes of the churchy folks who simply parrot theocratic babble verses from nearly 2000 years ago when the world was flat.

    Time to tell those folks that their God sanctions abortions, ’cause he said so. I don’t see anything about FORCED BIRTH, which is what the “pro-life” people want to impose on every circumstance.

  • Anonymous

    If this isn’t proof we need a better education system I don’t know what does. It’ okay to kill a person with family and loved ones, who is in the business of curing people who are sick and suffering so they can save a fetus? I think reagan did our country a terrible injustice when he decided we could no longer afford to house the mentally ill! He released them and they have reproduced and now they are actually in our government making decisions that effect us all! Another reagan policy that went wrong. Get real people these guys should not be in public office or in public period!

  • Anonymous

    There is no entitlement to voting. If you put that into perspective sir, that would mean property owning, white males ages 18+ would have the only privilege to vote just like it pretty much was in this country (except the fact it was 21+)…. Everyone is entitled to vote as citizens of America. Sure, there SHOULD be some educational standard, however that does not make voting equal to ALL.

    People will vote how they want. They vote through their own experience whether that be through a conservative upbringing or a liberal upbringing or somewhere in between. People will vote more liberal if/when the country is going through tough economies, wars, etc. People will vote more conservative when uneducated, and propagandized (as is seen now). The higher the republican turn out… it generally means not a lot of people have come out to vote. Hence, most non presidential and midterm elections turn in favor of RED states. Then there’s election tampering.

    So don’t even try to make voting a privilege. You’re sounding elitist and ignorant in your statement.

  • Anonymous

    To use your own words; you hinge your argument on whether abortion is a felony in the state. Yet the clause immediately preceding reads:
    “, 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”,
    Nicely side stepping whether or not abortion is a felony in the state.

    (updated:
    Of course, I *could* have just read @The Sailor’s comment below first and saved myself all that typing and copying and pasting…I think I’ll leave mine up as an exercise in humility.)

  • Anonymous

    I am a teacher…I am printing this article off to show my students what propaganda and poor education can get you later in life. South Dakota is rapidly approaching the heights of Kansas in the laughing stock arena. I love it!!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    You are exactly right, and anyone with an IQ over 50 could understand it. However, you are trying to convince people who believe what they WANT to believe, no matter how fanciful or silly or devoid of fact and reason the idea is. That’s why we call them “sheeple”. They read a clearly misleading headline that fits into their predetermined world view, and then go on & on & on with comments that are predicated on the original, ridiculous concept. Thanks for trying, but you’d have more luck teaching a rock to talk than getting these people to think for themselves.

  • Anonymous

    First of all, the term “abortion doctor” is a misnomer. There are doctors that practice women’s health care that do legal abortion procedures as part of their practice. They are not any more “abortion doctors” than an electrician is soley a light bulb installer. They are doctors that provide a wide array of legal medical services that adhere to their medical ethics and medical oath. These doctors deal with women at their most vulnerable with skill and compassion and without judgement. It is time that those in the population that aren’t extremists, religious dogmatics, and absolutionists, gave these doctors that risk a great deal the public respect they deserve. To all the men so vocal about abortion, until your sex stops making babies out of wedlock, abandoning the mothers and you take responsiblity for unwanted children, you have no leg to stand on.

  • Guest

    With the moniker Socialistarian, I’m fully ready to accept anything you say! And for your education… you don’t have to be either southern or gun happy to believe in the virtues of the second amendment. We DO have a right to defend ourselves, our family and our property. Courts have consistently ruled that police have no obligation to save lives… only to collect evidence and bring the suspect to court once a crime has been committed. Check out “More Guns: Less Crime” third edition by Dr. John Lott, he can explain to you how much you benefit from other, more reasonable and intelligent people around you carrying guns. As to your assertion that we can just shoot anyone we like – well that is simply untrue as that would be criminal and fall under the purview of criminal law and gun law.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GMONWJ5YEAUTI3MIRGEWG66WSE gillaroo

    Just more pandering to those who take orders from pulpits.
    republican pols care more about the votes that lead to corporate largesse
    than they do about abortion.

  • Guest

    oh great the “I want you to pay for all of my many abortions woman speaks up” in her usual way. Maybe you and Socialistarian can not have a baby together.

  • Guest

    It’s ok to defend yourself with equal force – no matter what your political persuasion.

  • Guest

    easily… they’re completely un-related

  • Anonymous

    If it’s ALREADY a crime to kill or injure someone than why is it necessary to write this law? If it’s already a law to defend oneself against injury or death than why is it necessary to pass this law? They’re not JUST targeting criminals. They’re stereotyping anyone who kills an unborn child as a criminal. Any court of law in that state would interpret that law as such.

    There’s using logic and reason for you paul.

  • Anonymous

    Are the doors to all hospitals for the insane open????

  • Anonymous

    Actually, the more guns around you the less safe you are. And the more loopholes in gun laws the less safe we all are. The NRA wants you to believe having a gun will make you safe and those around you. You have bought in to their lies.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SIHAPY2KWRNTJO4IYIZTRFBSOA Bob

    Denny, see my comment below. Or would reading the entire proposed piece of legislation pop your bubble as to whom posses the pea (not pee, unless you were making a urine joke)-brained minds.

  • Anonymous

    Not to good for the families for those killed……..would those supporters and writers of the bill then be held as consiprators???

  • Anonymous

    What a depressing quote…….but evident.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SIHAPY2KWRNTJO4IYIZTRFBSOA Bob

    Then you didn’t bother to read the entire proposed bill. Or you ignored the second section. Or you just don’t understand it. But in essence, it gives, for example, the father of the fetus the right to murder the medical provider if the father “reasonably believes” that the provider is going to commit egregious injury to the fetus. There is nothing in the bill that prohibits this from happening if, for example, the mother actually consents to the procedure, and her whacko-husband, baby-daddy decides to exercise his Second Amendment rights to halt the operation.

  • Anonymous

    Another day another Christian taliban decision by one of their flock. We are becoming Backward.

  • Dakotahgeo

    BECOMING??? We’ve been way beyond that for quite some time. That’s why we’re sitting atop a loaded dung heap NOW!!!

  • Anonymous

    Here you see why the Tea Tards ran for office. It’s the same old same old. Anti abortion, anti civil rights, anti gay/lesbian.
    I hope the people who voted for these idiots end up with out their Social Security checks and Medicare.
    That’s when the lights will go on in your dense brains!

  • Dakotahgeo

    Unfortunately, soooooo true!!! I-29 to SD is Hwys. 13 + 16. Anything over 20 is unknown to them.

  • Anonymous

    OMG!!! THAT IS IT.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA, FUCK YOU ALL TO STINKING HELL.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA, AND YOUR FALSE PROMISES AND LIES.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA, AND YOUR POLITICIANS.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA AND YOUR BILLIONARES.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA, AND THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT TAKE TO THE STREETS.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA, AND YOUR FALSE AMERICAN DREAM.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA FOR CLAIMING TO BE THE BEST, WHILE YOU ARE THE WORST.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA, AND YOUR POVERTY.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA FOR YOUR HATE.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA, AND YOUR SO CALLED CHRISTIANITY.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA FOR THE WAY YOU TREAT WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
    FUCK YOU AMERICA, AND YOUR god DAMN SUPREME SHIT ASS COURT!!!!!

  • Kathleen McKinley

    What a complete distortion and lie about this bill. Of course it is about the murder of a woman and a baby while she is pregnant and in NO way condones the killing of an abortion doctor. It has nothing to do with abortion. And look at all of you who bought it. Good grief. Considering the FACT that every pro life leader, group, and organization has always CONDEMNED the shooting of abortion doctors, this article also misleads on that point. No pro lifer believes in the killing of ANYONE, including an abortionist. The author of this piece should be ashamed of himself for spreading lies and ginning up hate, and all of you should be ashamed for believing it.

  • Anonymous

    But you’re already allowed to kill someone who’s trying to kill you. If that is the purpose of the bill, it’s totally useless.

  • Lincoln Paradox

    I would hope so. Brazenly paving the pathway to legal murder would hopefully lead to federal prosecution for at least the composers of the legislation. Possible the governor for not vetoing the bill…

  • Anonymous

    Guess there’s just a lot of

    “harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child”

    going on in South Dakota that needs to be legislated against.

  • Anonymous

    I’m just having the hardest time imaging an attack on a pregnant woman, which doesn’t justify using lethal force to protect her, but does threaten the life of her unborn child such that lethal force is then justified.

  • Anonymous

    The Quakers don’t make oatmeal as much as the Jews don’t make Hebrew National hot dogs (kosher). Neither make either.

  • Anonymous

    I’m just having the hardest time imaging an attack on a pregnant woman, which doesn’t justify using lethal force to protect her, but does threaten the life of her unborn child such that lethal force is then justified.

  • Anonymous

    Oatmeal isn’t made by quakers like Hebrew National Hot Dogs aren’t Jewish/kosher.

  • Anonymous

    According to the story “But in a hearing last week, “[a] parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law,” Mother Jones’s Kate Sheppard wrote.”

    Did this happen or not? Simple question, no?

    As far as your claim that: “No pro lifer believes in the killing of ANYONE,” this is patently false since many pro-lifers are stalwart defenders of the death penalty. And several pro-lifers with connections to the most radical pro-life organization, Operation Rescue, have been convicted of killing abortion doctors and have unabashedly and unapologetically claimed at their trials that they were doing God’s work and they would do it again.

    Lying about this aspect of the pro-life movement doesn’t mean that anything else here you say is a lie but it does indicate that what you say here should be closely examined since you are obviously “not above the occasional grift,” and “you probably had grifter parents, and grifter grandparents” too.

  • http://twitter.com/wingdo Doug

    This is the same GOP which hates the Theocratic rule in Iran?

  • Anonymous

    And someone accused me of being utterly depraved and disingenuous when I said last week that people should call Boehner’s office and ask the person answering the phone if he is going to legalize “honor killings.” Looks from this story that I was being prescient rather than disingenuous.

    How far removed from that practice is this law?

    Really?

    This is nothing more than blatant and legalized vigilantism of the worst possible kind and it’s only a short step from this precedent to allowing the murder of one’s wife or daughter for getting an abortion also isn’t it?

    What kind of precedent are the Christian Taliban setting here?

    What’s the difference between aborting one baby and aborting more; it’s the same crime isn’t it? We sentence people to death in this country every day for killing a single person, just as we do if they kill ten or more people, so why should the number of abortions matter at all? If you are legalizing the killing of someone for “killing” more than one “baby” aren’t you also saying it is OK to murder someone who “kills” only one “baby.”

  • Anonymous

    have US MARSHALS AND THE NATIONAL GUARD PROTECT THE DOCTORS AND THEIR STAFFS 24/7….
    THEN WITH HOLD FED $$$$$$$$
    ONLY 2 THINGS THAT CONTROL THE G O P………………..POWER AND $……….

  • Anonymous

    Or …….Make it a Federal Offense for violation of a Fed Law and then hang the person if convicted………….
    SIMPLE

  • Anonymous

    We have South Dakota is working hard to make murder legal and the Feds as working hard to make rape legal. After all these years of Woman fighting for equality and now it’s coming to an end. Tea Party did good as they can take pride in getting the Republican Party to join in. All those woman in both Party are clueless to the plan to put them back in the kitchen/bedroom. The plan is working very well and let’s see how it turns out.

  • Anonymous

    Wow death has nothing to do with death?

  • AnzaSummer

    If there were fewer Xtians, the people might have better ethics. Someday, it will come down to the Xtians and the rest of us. Then one brand of Xtians against another. A real swell group of myth believers they are.

  • Anonymous

    and these people who call themselves “Christians” wonder why their numbers are dropping among educated people…. or maybe they dont wonder… they probably dont think much at all… certainly not about the appearance of any of their actions when juxtaposed next to their high-and-mighty words.
    when you constantly just assume you are “righteous” because you read(yet dont understand) an ancient text written by “God himself”.. you sleep with it under your pillow at night to soak up the holy spirit… you just let whatever that comes from “your heart” spew directly from your mouth and call it God’s word itself…

    its so painfully obvious how this religion has been taken over by people with their own motivations.. its a horrible thing now.. but its been this way for so long…

    they used Christianity against the civil rights movement..
    they used it against the native americans
    they used it against the all pilgrims who first came to this country too!! the oppressed become the oppressors..

    they talk themselves blue about how Islam is against the “infidels”.. like they dont have infidels themselves they are fighting? they just call them “heathens” and “sinful”.. big difference.

    those poor souls living and dying in the bronze age had NO IDEA what they were getting the world into…. you cant blame them for any of this…

    at some point we should realize we can do better than them though… youd think right?

  • Anonymous

    Its because it is no longer about “Thou shall not kill” but more along the line of You will be a christian whether you like it or not. Fanatical christians are always full of the Do what I say, not what I do. Of course also completely ignoring things like “Judge not, for he be judged first” or “He who free of sin cast the first stone”. Christianity (like most Religions) is poison, filled with Greed, Glutiny, Envy, and Hatred…… You know, all the things they tell you is from the devil, and their sworn enemy (HA). Not to mention a arrogant sense of Self Righteousness with a proud stance of ignorance and self entitlement. It is said that actions are louder then words, but based on the fact that everyone remains ignorant and tolerant of this type of trash, I would definately say that this statement isn’t true… The fact that the US Gov’t has tolerated this intorerence for so long just disapoints the rest of America that just wants Seperation of Church and State. The people who want to think for themselves and have different views or morals are sidestepped for the Christian Monopoly. Violence is Violence, and Violence is evil, wrong and unaccepatble, reagardless of who you think is right.. But they think they can do anything in the Morallity Ses-pool as long as they do it in Jesus’s name… And then they have the Audacity to call everyone else immoral. They are the oldest Foil Hat wearing nut cases that believe their own version of “The Illiad” while chastising other religions for doing the same.. Its honestly just sad and pitiful. If you truely want to avoid hell, leave your socialist cult behind.

  • http://www.dynastymanager.com/teampage2.php?u=Bovandy&sport=ncaa_fb Bo Vandy

    It was clearly a joke

  • Anonymous

    Hey you pedophile priest breeder: adulterous wife-dumpers/mother-killers Randall Terry and Deal Hudson support killing MOTHER-SAVING doctors and their unworthy (aging and ugly) patients dying from dangerous pregnancies.

  • yvonneo

    Well, let’s not forget about all of those short-sighted progressives that chose to sit out the midterm elections because they were angry with obama, never mind that he wasn’t on the ballot. They refused to vote for the lesser of two evils, so now we’re stuck with this bullshit for the next two years–and it’s only been a little over a month since the teatards/republicans were sworn in. So this is just the beginning and it’s going to get much worse, which means it’s going to be a very long two years before the next election. Let’s just hope we all survive it.

    And still all we hear from the teatards/republicans about job creation are crickets chirping–in fact, they seem to be doing everything possible to eliminate even more jobs and creating bullshit legislation like this (legislating their religious beliefs to be enforced on the rest of us) than doing anything that actually helps the American people get back to work so they can pay their bills.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4BJJYQJIW5MGAP72LCAJMH5CYE Joe Dirt

    For a faith that appears to have forgiveness and tolerance at it’s very core it seems that many Christians are some of the most unforgiving, intolerant people in the world.

    All forms of religion are BS because every single one of them has, at it’s core the same thing: Guilt and fear. Do this, else suffer some form of eternal consequence.

    Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who is his own father can provide you everlasting life if you telepathically accept him as your savior, thereby removing an original sin that was put there when a woman, made from the rib of man listened to a talking snake and ate an apple from a magic tree.

    Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

  • Anonymous

    Hmm, current research is indicating that junk food consumption very likely causes harm to the foetus. So does that mean open licence on McDonalds, Coke, Pizza Hut, Pepsi, corporate executives, directors and major shareholders. All of those who profit while exposing unborn children to toxic chemicals, hmm, so are mass polluters now also on the South Dakota shoot to kill list.

  • Anonymous

    LOL!

  • Anonymous

    Does this mean that we can shoot South Dakota legislators if they don’t provide adequate prenatal care to poor women?

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, you’re spouting complete nonsense. A person is already allowed to use lethal force to prevent a real murder in progress. This is specifically targeted at doctors performing a legal medical procedure. It’s South Dakota Repugs implementing their Christaliban version of Sharia law.

    Up next: legalized honor killings.

  • Anonymous

    This will allow “christians” to kill people they don’t like. Who’s next, people working for the “lamestream media?” I’m sure Palin has a long list.

  • Anonymous

    Can we execute politicians who advocate for war?

  • Anonymous

    Can we execute tobacco company executives?

  • Anonymous

    Can we execute anyone who works for FOX News?

  • Anonymous

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Boehner admitted today that he doesn’t give a damn about jobs, his only concern is the budget and reducing the deficit and if that costs some jobs “so be it’!

    “Let’s just hope we all survive it.”

    We can always hope, but I would guess that such survival might be questionable for the most vulnerable at this point!

  • Lincoln Paradox

    Technically, the father could kill the mother, too.

  • Lincoln Paradox

    The FBI will step in if this passes.

  • http://twitter.com/Michael_Gaston Michael Gaston

    Batshit is as batshit does.

  • http://twitter.com/Michael_Gaston Michael Gaston

    This is why the framers of the Constitution mandated separation of Church and State. The line drawn could not be any more clear.

  • Anonymous

    intelligent people around you carrying guns… And therein lies the rub.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

    The brown shirts are here.

  • Anonymous

    Jack_Program – you said violence is violence, and violence is evil.

    I’m wondering on what you base that statement?

    If there is no God, then morals are relative and something human invented.

    Just sayin

  • Anonymous

    A definition of a troll: a person unhampered by FACTS.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6WMDNMQDUVS3VMQPBRAPND33NA GreenGrr

    LOVE!

  • Schmice

    Will somebody please ask $arah Palin(TM) what she thinks about this (and be sure you have a camera and microphone).

  • Budzilla

    Good for you.

  • Budzilla

    Then you’re not pro-life, you’re anti-choice.

  • Budzilla

    LOL

  • Budzilla

    Thinks?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6WMDNMQDUVS3VMQPBRAPND33NA GreenGrr

    This law is written in such a way that it can be interpreted as making it legal to kill a doctor. Legislation is ALWAYS open to interpretation. That’s how our law works. That’s why we have a judiciary. If these terrorist lawmakers meant it to only be in defense of pregnant women (such laws are already on the books), they would have said that clearly. They wrote it this way on purpose.

    Every “pro life” leader, group, and organization had NOT condemned killing. (See Army of God). In fact, they usually say something like “Oh we don’t *condone* killing, but that’s what they get for performing abortions”

    These people are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. If they were really pro-life they would be anti death penalty, anti war, and pro universal health care. The ONLY way abortion will EVER be reduced is through economic and social justice. If the anti-abortion crowd was serious about it, they’d be working for that. Instead, they’re going around shooting people.

  • Anonymous

    I think that’s the real issue: these people are pro-shooting-other-people. If it wasn’t over a bullshit, made-up, anti-religious issue like abortion, it would be something else.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6WMDNMQDUVS3VMQPBRAPND33NA GreenGrr

    Speaking of that… Phyllis effing SCHLAFLY? Who knew she was even still alive?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6WMDNMQDUVS3VMQPBRAPND33NA GreenGrr

    There are already laws that make assaulting and/or killing pregnant women a more serious crime than assaulting/killing a non-pregnant woman. Assault and killing on anyone in general is already a crime against which someone can use lethal force. The point of this law is to legalize killing the doctors, nurses, and clinic staff.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6WMDNMQDUVS3VMQPBRAPND33NA GreenGrr

    Don’t worry. They’ll all freeze to death because they won’t be able to get that heating assistance.

    Unfortunately, a lot of other nice people will also freeze to death.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6WMDNMQDUVS3VMQPBRAPND33NA GreenGrr

    All you have to do is take your daily hypocrisy pills.

  • Anonymous

    If you were anointed with Kaneh Bosem you might listen to a cosmic talking snake…

    “This holy anointing oil, as described in the original Hebrew version of the recipe in Exodus (30:22-23), contained over six pounds of kaneh-bosem, a substance identified by respected etymologists, linguists, anthropologists, botanists and other researchers as cannabis, extracted into about six quarts of olive oil, along with a variety of other fragrant herbs. The ancient anointed ones were literally drenched in this potent mixture.”
    http://hightimes.com/news/ht_admin/139

    These Christers really could use some…
    Kaneh Bosem: heal the sick, help the blind see…
    Legalize Kaneh Bosem, it’s the christian thing to do.

  • Anonymous

    It won’t pass of course but it makes them look like gallant crusaders to their twisted fundy christian conspirators.

  • Jaimie11

    Consider this: I am pro-choice as are elements in the government (overly big imo) who are willing to pay for my abortion and everyone else’s who cannot afford to pay themselves. My rights and theirs are guaranteed. Fine and dandy. But the rights of those who are morally opposed to abortion are not guaranteed. Sure they don’t have to get abortions if they choose not to, but they are forced to support abortion financially against their preferred choice not to.

    Is it possible that the left has contributed to the development of this horrid legislation by not respecting the rights of those, who are opposed to abortion, to exercise their right to refrain from paying for them?

  • Anonymous

    Captain obvious is….obvious. You obviously have issues with jokes, swgirl. We got it. Some people like to make jokes when situations get tense…which you obviously haven’t figured that out yet. Please move on.

    Oh, and on another note…please go to google. Do a google search on how to identify kosher products. I hate to see someone make statements that make themselves look like asses. Your statements on this topic seem to be about 50% correct.

  • Jaimie11

    Yes, as much as pro-abortioners like to kill. Since Roe v Wade – 50,000,000 black babies have died. Some people call that genocide.

  • Arlo J. Thudpucker

    After reading some of the comments from intellectually challenged goobers who failed to comprehend the content of the bill gracefully provided for the rebuttal of reactionary nonsense, I would like to suggest that Raw Story begin to acknowledge “Fucktard of the Day”.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I take inspiration from the story of “Old Yeller”.

    Some may recall that Old Yeller was a great dog, a member of family, a protector and shepherd. Truly an inspiration. Then, in the process of faithfully fulfilling his role as protector, Old Yeller contracted rabies.

    Every shred of loyalty, sanity, decency and love was erased from his disease addled mind. The faithful friend became a crazed frothing monster that could easily kill or maim those he once loved. All conscience, all affection, all semblance of reason was gone…only murderous confusion and violent rage.

    You can’t hug a rabid psychotic beast and make peace with it. Draw your own conclusions.

  • Jaimie11

    I see that this bill amends state law. Are you a lawyer or familiar with the law it amends? From section one of this amendment bill it is not immediately clear that the left interpretation is not correct. Would you be so kind as to provide a link or a copy of that part of the statue this section amends?

    “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.”

    http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm

    Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    Is “God Hates Fags” Rev. Phelps pro life?

    -woman AND a baby?
    “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.”

    It’s about the murder of the unborn baby.
    There are already laws about the murder of a woman.
    Jesus teaches Forgiveness.
    The more christian battle would be to legalize the Kaneh Bosem that God has provided for Jesus and his followers.

    The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
    because the Lord has anointed me
    to bring good tidings to the afflicted;
    he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
    to proclaim liberty to the captives,
    and the opening of the prison
    to those who are bound;
    to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,
    and the day of vengeance of our God;
    to comfort all who mourn.
    http://hightimes.com/news/ht_admin/139

    Faith.

  • Anonymous

    They are *not* either “forced to support abortion financially” in any useful sense of the phrase. There were lies spread about the health care reform claiming that it would do just that, but that’s the closest you can get.

  • Jaimie11

    For your interpretation to be correct wouldn’t the wording have to be

    “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, AND to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.”

  • http://twitter.com/Rteefact Rteefact

    Doesn’t that make them just as bad..there is a law of the land. Sanctioning murder, who made them GOD.

  • Jaimie11

    Is being anti-abortion a crime? What happened to the rights of people to determine their own moral codes for themselves. Why is there only one option PRO-ABORTION? And who decided what it is supposed to be?

  • Anonymous

    As usual, DISQUS bugs up a discussion. I’d like to add to Mr. Velasquez’s observation on “Christians,” that the Amish aren’t so great either. They split off from the Mennonites in the late 17th century because they wanted to continue the cruel practice of shunning, and the Mennonites didn’t.

  • Jaimie11

    You call it a fetus so that you can abort it easily if you choose to. Some people call it a baby because they value it at all stages of its development despite your not agreeing with their values, and despite your insistence that only your values matter and have import.

    Other people have rights too, including the right to differ in opinion from the one you choose to hold.

    It is also not within the scope of your business to force others to pay for your business, medical or otherwise, when they are morally opposed to doing so.

  • Anonymous

    The Amish split off from the Mennonites because they (the Amish) wanted to do the cruel practice of shunning.

  • Anonymous

    Everyone knows the Quakers are weird, they don’t persecute or shun people.

  • Anonymous

    You must be a vegetarian! Good for you! Healthy for you! Pollution Kills as well. We should get rid of cars. I comprehend. Tall order though… Good Luck with that! No fly swatting… it goes on and on!

  • Anonymous

    Take a deep breath. I’m saying you can see where something is headed by the people or intrests that support it.

  • Jaimie11

    Still, the “or” makes the examples preceding it independent of the requirement of the “felony”. Don’t you agree? And if not why not? How do you justify your interpretation?

    “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 *not and* to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.”

  • Jaimie11

    I think I replied to your comment in error – meant a different one that I can’t find now. Sorry.

  • Anonymous

    Well I don’t like supprting wars so how do I opt. out of paying for that? If you don’t approve of abortion, don’t have one. Leave everybody else alone.

  • cannotvote

    Loons – they’re going nutz! This is absolutely bonkers! But if this does go ahead then where does it stop? I’d like to propose a bill that has stupid fucks shot in the ass – obviously a head shot would be useless, or those that vote rethug should be burnt at the stake – in a democratic state, that might pass – or fox news watchers should all be executed! What has this country come to !!!!!!?

  • Jaimie11

    Wait no, yours is the comment. Anti-abortionists. Of course they would support this bill. But they have every right to. Maybe you would consider this that I posted to denny earlier on this thread. Does the left have a responsibility in escalating the war over abortion and who pays for it?

    “Consider this: I am pro-choice as are elements in the government (overly big imo) who are willing to pay for my abortion and everyone else’s who cannot afford to pay themselves. My rights and theirs are guaranteed. Fine and dandy. But the rights of those who are morally opposed to abortion are not guaranteed. Sure they don’t have to get abortions if they choose not to, but they are forced to support abortion financially against their preferred choice not to.

    Is it possible that the left has contributed to the development of this horrid legislation by not respecting the rights of those, who are opposed to abortion, to exercise their right to refrain from paying for them?”

  • http://twitter.com/Will181198 William Warihay

    Nothing about the definition quoted by this author permits anyone to kill a doctor who performed an abortion. This author has taken this law out of context.

    The new definition does allow for a “justifiable murder” by a person who is RESISTING harm to their unborn child. The “justifiable” nature of this only extends to the person who is actually being harmed or resisting the harm. It does not grant free reign for just anybody to go around killing anyone. Further, the key word is resisting. If a woman seeks medical attention for an abortion, she, by definition, is not resisting the conduct so she nor anyone else can kill that doctor for providing the treatment.

    I would suggest Mr. Webster consult with a lawyer or legal analyst before making such assumptions and assertions in the future of his articles.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2EXQXTF5QLTBYF6JXCKQRCWPH4 John

    OMG-this is a perfect example of the liberal media distorting something to fit their template. It says “to harm the unborn child of such person” which means if a burglar comes into my house and assaults my pregnant wife I can kill the SOB. It doesn’t mean an abortion doctor, because clearly if you are obtaining an abortion you have consented to the unborn child being killed. Are liberals really that stupid? Geez.

  • Anonymous

    She was never exactly the stay at home mom that she wanted all other women to be.

  • Jaimie11

    Most definitely yes, and YES.

    Do you think it possible that antagonizing people who don’t want to pay for abortion and yet are pro-war, could also infuriate people who are opposed to abortion AND war as well? Wouldn’t respecting their rights to NOT pay for abortion, thus exercising their own moral choice, give your requests for not paying for war more currency with them, or some of them at least. Possibly, a coalition of anti-abortion, anti-war people with anti-war pro-choice people could result. I wonder if any anti-abortion people would be able to support the pro-choice position if they were not being forced to pay for abortions. That would be the ultimate pro-choice, no?

    Wouldn’t we the people have more power to petition the criminal government, that forces them to pay for abortion and us to pay for war, to end this divisive practice? Something to think about.

  • Jaimie11

    That is not the view of people who want to be able to opt out from paying for abortion. And this has nothing to do with health care reform. This tension has existed for a long time. It’s actually about rights of conscience, just as people who are antiwar would like to opt out of paying for that.

    I support our rights of conscience. We are all better off when we have them even if another person’s conscience dictates differently from ours.

    It’s something to consider I think. The people have been divided up into small groups and then set upon each other. Meanwhile the government gets away with murder. I contend we more in common than the government would like us to realize.

  • Anonymous

    As tax payers we all financialy support things we don’t approve of like war. Anti abortionists have every right to have as many kids as they want. No one hinders them. But you can be sure if this gaggle of geese is involved with this legislation, the aim is to hinder pro-choice.

  • Anonymous

    And I miss that self righteous bastard :-) (pun intended)

  • Anonymous

    How, precisely, do you claim that the government forces those who are opposed to abortion to support it?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Zentrails/100001475536421 Bob Zentrails

    So, if the killer of Tiller the baby killer lived in the future United State of South Dakota, everything would have been A-OK?

    And the people trying to get this law passed are “pro-life?”

  • Anonymous

    The pro-life movement is an oxymoron.

  • Jaimie11

    Well, it would be a lot better if we stood up against supporting things we don’t approve of. But we’d have to be big about and join with our “enemies” in order to be a large enough group for the political class to take us seriously. Ever wonder why the political conversation in this country is carefully limited to two opposite positions that fight all the time?

    What if there are other options that are more effective for us all to get what we want instead of screwed all the time?

  • Jaimie11

    Through tax monies to pay for abortions for poor women who can’t pay themselves. Those who are morally opposed to abortion are forced to pay taxes like we all are, and feel coerced into paying for something they cannot conscientiously pay for willingly. If you dislike paying for war, then you know how they feel.

    Maybe if those of us who dislike paying for things we are morally opposed to got together, we’d have more power to effectively say no to the government that takes our money and kills people with it.

    A little empathy could go along way.

  • http://twitter.com/MrEthiopian ed smith

    Lets look at the verbiage of this bill, what in the Hell is (hoghoused), in a nutshell its nothing but whitewash, bull-shat, legislation that has been bastardized to create fear,an ember for the fire: this is NOT a bill or a law in the works, its nothing more than an attempt to stir the pot.

    Its simply a roost by the looser of an augment that has been settled for 30 years

    Google the word “hoghoused”
    http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/hoghouse/

  • Anonymous

    The anti-choice people want to control everyone else. It’s the principle not the money. As for your coalition , good luck with that.

  • Anonymous

    So what would your compromise look like?

  • Anonymous

    Let me try that again, with emphasis: how, *****PRECISELY*****, do you propose this is occurring? Specifics: what program(s), how they are doing this when it’s explicitly prohibited by law, that sort of thing? I hate to come across as demanding and all, but if what you’re saying is true (again, in any useful sense) I’d very much like to know it; on the other hand, it’s very much the *sort* of claim that those more interested in getting their way than in being truthful (on most any issue) often make, and that those agreeing with them tend to believe and spread with no further examination, and your providing nothing but vague, general claims does not lend itself to credence.

    Sorry for assuming you were talking about the health care reform act originally, by the way.

  • http://twitter.com/ClinicEscort ClinicEscort

    Well, hm. It’s been 38 years since Roe v Wade. There are just over a million abortions, total, in the US each year–since I am friendly, I’ll spot you 1.25 million. Multiply 38 times 1.25M and you get 47.5M. Are you saying that all those embryos and fetuses have been black embryos and fetuses? White ladies and Asian ladies and Native ladies don’t get abortions? It’s all a big conspiracy to kill off the African-Americans… perpetrated, of course, not by rightists, who are widely known for their appreciation of and kinship with people of color, but by progressives?

    Oooor are you just mixing up your anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-human-rights talking points?

    In case it’s the latter, here’s another freebie: Martin Luther King and W E B Du Bois were both supporters of Margaret Sanger’s work.

  • http://www.balmorheaprogressive.blogspot.com/ BaileyWuXiang

    Some folks just don’t have a sensi of humidor.

  • http://www.balmorheaprogressive.blogspot.com/ BaileyWuXiang

    Hummm. Suppose they could write one of those for teabaggers? I mean, when a Teabagger pulls off a home invasion of Congress what are we supposed to do, let them steal our civil liberties? Oh, I almost forgot; we already lost them under Bush. Never mind.

  • Nickelthrower

    Greetings,

    I love that definition of Christianity – hilarious!

  • M L

    Isotropic is correct. The author of this article did not read the proposed bill carefully. The bill proposes to create a justifiable homicide defense for those who are protecting their own fetuses (it is unclear in the language of the bill if that includes the father of the fetus). This bill would not make it legal to murder an abortion doctor or anyone who is employed at an abortion clinic.

  • M L

    Isotropic was partially correct in his analysis. This law would create a “justifiable homicide” defense for those who kill to protect their own unborn child. The statute is unclear as to whether the defense applies to fathers (it obviously applies to mothers of unborn children). Cosliberal’s analysis of the jury process is silly.

  • M L

    That does not make it a felony in the state! The statute only concerns the justifiable homicide defense.

  • M L

    This is a terrible analysis of the proposed bill.

  • Anonymous

    How much deeper into insanity do supposed “leaders” want this country to go?

  • http://www.rawstory.com/ Mark (MarkusGarvey) Estrada

    In an effort to serve the online community best, please verify your Disqus account so that your comments will appear as soon as they are posted. Thanks.
    (copy/paste the email link directly to your browser if clicking on it does not work)
    If you prefer, you can also log in using your Facebook,Yahoo,Twitter or OpenId account.

  • Anonymous

    Well, that took a bit longer than I expected. First run out all the reproductive health care providers, then kill the ones who keep coming back.

    Really, this is just the next logical step in the war on terruh. Extraordinary rendition of American citizens for enhanced interrogation – known as kidnapping and torture outside the U.S.- is official White House policy. Once that Rubicon is crossed, it’s an easy tumble downhill.

    The question is, how far is too far for these psychos? Since teaching children Atheism, evolution, or (insert your favorite liberal cause here) is an offense to God that denies them EVERLASTING life, who could blame a Christian for going after the Godless to protect them from secularist indoctrination?

  • Anonymous

    Psychological stress has been known to induce spontaneous abortion. You simply have no imagination. Just think like someone who wants to see state-Sponsored persecution of everyone but Fundamentalist Christians. Easy peasy.

  • Anonymous

    Women change their minds about abortions at the last minute all the time, right? Otherwise Randall Terry’s thugs wouldn’t station themselves outside women’s health clinics.

    Thus, the only way to assure that a woman isn’t “resisting” harm to her fetus is to station armed fetus protectors right in the procedure room.

  • Anonymous

    Remember, god wants you to love the fetus. Everybody else can go to hell.

  • Anonymous

    Say missy, you don’t know Rethugs very well. They ALWAYS work in stages. You betya.

    Learn to read between lines, and read the bill.

  • Anonymous

    They will cut the heating to pregnant women who will freeze to death, and their fetuses will die.
    Then what?

  • Anonymous

    They will cut the heating to pregnant women who will freeze to death, and their fetuses will die.
    Then what?

  • Anonymous

    This is the classic foot in the door to lead the fetus to “personhood”. A fantasy scenario would lead to legal rights for the fetus and a declaration that abortion is murder. It is a well known belief of the right. Unfamiliar with it?
    Murdering my wife is already illegal. The scenario you describe: “Your wife and unborn baby could be shot or stabbed to death before the police arrive, and there is a person who could have stopped it, but the current law will not protect this person if he/she does act to protect your family..” is a fantasy. There is no scenario that someone defending your wife would not be protected by current law. You, or a stranger, would be held within legal rights in the grocery store hostage situation you describe. Describe in a “real world” situation what that scenario is. Do you just not understand law?

  • ProgressiveInNewYork

    since there is no god as it was invented by man morals were also
    just look at history and see the evolution of morals just as there were evolutions and revolutions in religion.

    I’m an adult, I don’t need some sky deity telling me what’s right and wrong nor do I need the Carrot and stick (heaven /hell) to goad me into doing what I perceive as right. I find it in my self interest to do so.
    Plus taking the responsibility for my actions is more refreshing than blaming it on some fictional deity.

  • Anonymous

    Quote robin cooper “These pro-lifers sure like to kill a whole lot.”

    I think the pro choice people would have a better claim to liking to kill alot.

    I thought I was pro choice till I found out what a dead baby looks like. Now I figure the womenshould be forced to live with it till it comes out then five it to someone who wants it

  • Anonymous

    If you’re so concerned, why don’t you take in those babies? Like most “pro-lifers”, you only care about the baby until the moment of birth. Then, the mother and child are on their own. That’s “compassionate conservative” for ya!

  • Anonymous

    So, you can kill someone that is “outside” of you giving birth to them, because the female involved made a decision about her own body. Are you the dumbass that I saw with that bumper sticker: Abortion-One killed, one wounded?

  • David R Velasquez

    Whoah, dude… you don’t like the Amish much, do you?

    Shunning maybe narrowed minded…although even the Quakers have been known to ‘disown’ people for things like acts of violence or marrying outside the faith.
    Nonetheless the thing that made me respect them was that incident where several amish schoolgirls were shot to death before the killer took his own life. Instead of clamouring for vengeance or ‘shunning’ the killers’ widow and family…… they made a special point of going her to forgive him and to embrace her and her family for their pain (in losing a father and husband)

    In this age where “christians” are always howling for blood vengeance I thought the Amish showed alot of courage and class even in the midst of their own bereavement.

  • Anonymous

    Did you read the article or did you just troll around looking for posts to take out of context? And I have not eaten meat in 15 years. So take your pomposity and shove it up your ass. Oh and really what do cars have to do with legalizing forms of murder?

  • Anonymous

    How about we make it justifiable homicide to kill people who try to expand what’s considered justifiable homicide?

    (Don’t worry, I do understand that this means I can be killed, too)

  • PoorCitizen

    Given the almost certain effects that will be caused by global warming, this sounds like license to take out global warming deniers. Lock and load?

  • Anonymous

    You believe that it’s only the men that do the shunning? What are you? Some kind of chauvinistic pig? I hear you, brother! Oink!

  • BrainRagYell

    Actually, facts are a standard for journalism–who, what, where, when, why, how.

    News is not an opinion.

    If journalists do not rely on facts, they are not reporting news, and, by consequence, are not journalists.

  • http://twitter.com/Douglas_Barnes Douglas_Barnes

    Too much fact, not enough truthiness. ;)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    anyone that calls that genocide is a moron. Those women chose to have those abortions, no one forced them to. Genocide is the forced killing of a people; the closest you can come to abortions being genocide would be that people in Poverty can’t afford to raise children in a well provided for environment, and that’s because the rich are looting the country.. therefore, the rich being greedy fucks (and those that condone such abuses on the public) are the cause, and those are the people responsible for your perceived genocide.

    And no one is pro-abortion, just like pro-lifers aren’t really pro-life. You have pro-choice (as in, it’s up to the individual, not you) and anti-choice (those that would force their religion and personal opinion down the throats of other human beings against their will.. kind of like a rapist).

    It’s not your body. It’s not your life. It’s not your choice. Mind your own business.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    My question is, if you’re a medical care provider and one of those whack-jobs comes to kill you.. and you defend yourself and kill them first.. will they deny you self-defense/justifiable homicide?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    The flaw in your logic is that you want to line-item veto health care procedures. You want to interject your nose into someone else’s business and limit medical procedures you don’t like simply because you don’t like it. You don’t get to line-item veto specific treatments just because you don’t like them. If you want to present some kind of rational argument for why a service should not be paid for, do that.. but saying “I’m morally opposed” isn’t a rational argument.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “That is not the view of people who want to be able to opt out from paying for abortion.”

    and that’s the rub, isn’t it. You don’t get to “opt out” of where your tax dollars get spent. Either you pay for something (health care for women) or you don’t. If you don’t like an overall system, drop the system.. but you don’t get to line-item specific things you disagree with.

    If you don’t like war, don’t start wars.. if you don’t like tanks in war, you don’t get to tell the Army they have to do without tanks because you don’t want your tax dollars spent on tanks. Either go to war or don’t, but the details are not your business. Same goes for a woman’s health care and decisions between the woman and her doctor.

    “It’s actually about rights of conscience, just as people who are antiwar would like to opt out of paying for that.”

    and as much as they would like it, they don’t get to. The country can’t function by trying to account for each person and where they want their individual tax dollars spent. That’s not how the system works. That the right-wing and religitards keep distracting from the larger picture with this bullshit, is why the con-men and abusers keep getting back in office and helping the top 2% loot the nation.

    If you people would answer the big questions and stop pretending you should also dictate all the details, especially about things that don’t concern you, we could get someplace in this country. Gay marriage, personal medical procedure decisions, which drugs are “satan’s work”, all this bullshit. And you’ll note it all started big time in the 80s when Reagen went into the Churches to drag out the religitards so they could get people voting on wedge issues, not general policy. The did it for (next line below)

    “The people have been divided up into small groups and then set upon each other.”

    Yes, because some people have been convinced that they have a right to force their personal relationship with their god down the throats of everyone else. Some people are stupid enough to believe that you have a right to your own life, but you also have to engage in specific behaviors based on someone’s personal feelings. Some people just don’t like the fact that other humans have a completely different world view than they do, and are content to abuse the other out of a sense of moral superiority despite there being no rational argument to be made to justify such a thing.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “A little empathy could go along way. ”

    You have no empathy if you want to force a poor woman who was raped to have the child and raise it in poverty. Not only are you abusing the woman for the rest of her life, you’re foisting violence and poverty on another human being as well.

    Well, not a lack of empathy, but you have no compassion, and I can’t empathize with that… sorry.

  • Jaimie11

    I agree, but that avoids the point I was making Joe. As for compassion, you have no concept of it, as you have completely misunderstood what I said. Try again in context this time. I did not say what you implied.
    Nor do I support what you implied.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “This law will simply make it legal to defend with lethal force an attack on any pregnant woman, which may endanger the life of her unborn child.”

    Except, any threat of danger to a fetus in the mother is a threat to the mother as well. Therefore, the mother ALREADY had a legal right to defend her own life, so the bill wasn’t even needed.. period. If there is no logical reason to extend the language of the already existing law (self defense), why create the bill?

    “What if your wife was pregnant and held at gun or knife point?”

    what if she was NOT pregnant? what, her life is then not worth protecting? .. think about it. The presence of a fetus is immaterial, period.

    You’re trying to dance straw-man arguments.

    If what Bob posted above is correct, a second part of the bill, then the “father” can “kill the doctor” even if the mother WILLINGLY was engaged in having an abortion.

    At a minimum, this bill is a mess because it makes no sense given that self-defense laws already exist, and allow for a husband to defend his wife (or anyone to defend someone else’s life, for that matter). There is NO NEED for a bill to specifically mention a fetus.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “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,”

    You don’t know how to read, do you. The COMMA after CHILD separates ideas.. that sentence stands ALONE in the “list” of “murder mom”, “harm fetus”, “commit felony against”. Therefore, DAD (as per section two, not listed in this article it seems) can kill the doctor even if MOM wants an abortion, because dad is protecting the fetus in mom, his wife/servant/whatever.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    Being anti-choice is a crime. You’re dictating to another human being what they must do with their lives and futures based on your personal feelings even though you never have to suffer the consequences of the rules you’re forcing on the other person.

    The discussion is “pro-choice or anti-choice”, and yes, those are the only two options at that level. Either people are allowed to decide for themselves what to do with their lives, or you dictate to them what they must do to make you happy. You’re looking to remove someone’s ability to have self-determination on a matter that deals with their health and the rest of their lives. Yet, it has NOTHING to do with you or your life. WTF? Mind your own fucking business.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    Current law already provided for that, as has been pointed out over and over.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    I call it a fetus because that’s the scientific term for it, it describes a state of development. You call it a “baby” because you want to put emotional strings on it, and want to frame the debate into something more than it is. You don’t care about science or biology or facts in this matter, you only care about your personal feelings (and want to force them on the entire population).

    “that only your values matter and have import.”

    Pot, kettle.. Guess what. MY views only matter to ME when dealing with MY LIFE. Period. YOUR views have no MERIT or BEARING and you have no RIGHT to foist your VIEWS on me or anyone else unless you can show LOGICAL and RATIONAL reasons for why those views matter. You know, like telling people they can’t drive drunk because it puts all kinds of people’s lives at risk?

    “when they are morally opposed to doing so. ”

    again, false meme. Your moral position on specific procedures is IMMATERIAL. If you can’t show logical and rational reasons for why something shouldn’t be done, then fuck off. Life is imperfect, the system can’t function if every person out there votes as to where every one of their tax dollars ends up. If you’re going to do that, you might as well abandon all taxation and go with a 100% volunteer system. .. but we already know that kind of system is rife with inefficiencies and discrimination.

    You don’t get to legislate your morality, it’s contradictory to the entire premise of the Constitution and personal Liberty.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    I find it amusing that you generally have such logical and rational posts on most topics.. but when it comes to this subject, you’re all touchy-feely with no options presented, nothing workable presented, nothing logical presented, just framing and memes to try and get people to give you special dispensation to “opt out” of this “one thing” because of your personal moral stance on it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “Thanks for trying, but you’d have more luck teaching a rock to talk”

    He’s nailed that one.. you’re talking!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    It’s a logical impossibility.. the only way to terminate a fetus without hurting the woman is through a medical procedure. Any other action puts the woman’s life at risk as well, and is therefore covered in current law.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    ” FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the 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.”

    So, there you have both sections from the bill, not anything from the “librul media”. Section two says “fathers” can “protect the unborn” if it is going to be subjected to “great personal injury”. So, MOM decides to have an abortion, goes to the clinic, and the FATHER murders the doctor to PROTECT HIS UNBORN/wife.. and this law says “meh, that’s fine..”.

    Sorry, do those facts contradict your delusion?

  • Anonymous

    Should I even bother asking a third time, as you refused to answer the first two? (or, rather, *pretended* to answer the first time without actually doing so, and ignored the second attempt completely)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    read section 2, then explain how the “father” protecting the “unborn from harm” doesn’t “justify killing the doctor” even if the WIFE sought the procedure.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    read section 2.. and it’s already “justified” to protect yourself/spouse if someone has a gun on them.

    Section two allows the FATHER to protect the unborn from harm, regardless of what the mother wants; a woman seeking a termination procedure now puts the doctor and staff at risk because the law shields the father from murder. Period. That’s what this law _says_ in the language of section 2.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    birth is a destructive process to the human body.. not to mention a life sentence of wondering if your child is being molested or abused by some priest someplace, or by parents who only adopted so they could have someone to abuse.

    I’m a guy so I’ll never have to make the choice of terminating a pregnancy or not. But I can’t imagine being a woman and not having a choice about what I do with my own body because some ignorant male xtian decided that his fairy tale was more important than my life.

  • Jaimie11

    Refused? Take a break and cool it, hyhy – I am very busy today. Answering you is down the list a way. I’ll get to it when I get to it.

  • Jaimie11

    Scientific terms can be misleading and can lack humanity – to paraphrase Einstein – soul without science is superstition, science without soul is sadism.

  • Jaimie11

    Pretty funny nobody’s joe, because all I am doing is asking questions. You attack QUESTIONS? No wonder you can’t think for yourself.

    And you are very, very biased, when all you have come up with is unrelenting and forced opting in. What hypocrisy!

  • Jaimie11

    “only two options” You reveal your limited thinking capacity. You are not someone ready for an intelligent discussion of anything.

  • Jaimie11

    I did not say that so fuck off you mindless twerp.

  • Jaimie11

    either or – either joe’s way or the highway. BS you stupid little man.

  • Jaimie11

    MY POSITION IS ABSOLUTE CHOICE – NO RESTRICTIONS WHAT SO EVER. CAN YOU COMPUTE?

  • Anonymous

    A person who never gets sick pays for taxes that lets people with TB get help. Otherwise, you would walk around other people and get exposed to TB. If you are old and pay taxes for schools, you get the benefit of new discoveries to make your life better. Your taxes pay for NASA and maybe your religion doesn’t believe in science, but you wear a pair of glasses. New Mexico allows illegals to have drivers licenses so then they have to buy car insurance. If they crash into you; you are not shit out of luck. I hate churches and they pay no taxes; and I make up for them. They use the roads, the “internets”, talk politics from the pulpit, walk on the socialist sidewalks to knock on my door. They walk across my property, trip and lose a kidney when they land on the ground and try to sue me because they do not believe in blood transfusions. I think you need to pick a better battle to fight.

  • Jaimie11

    As for how abortion is funded by people who are opposed to funding it – I am surprised you are unaware of how tax revenues are collected and spent, how spending is done with borrowed money created by the Federal Reserve and our taxes are used to pay the interest on that debt. The borrowed money is then dispersed to keep the government functioning, to the various departments, defense for example, to the welfare programs, medicaid among them, of the various states. Abortions for women who cannot afford to pay are paid for with public funds.

    Now if you are really interested in a discussion, please tone it down. You might be interested to know my position on abortion. It is as follows: There should NO laws governing or limiting in any manner, what a woman does with her own body and any decisions she makes. Laws governing the behavior of women as differentiated from men, are condescending, paternalistic, and demeaning. They assume women cannot think for themselves and need the guiding judgement of some superior person or authority.

    My attitude is probably freer than yours. You want abortion regulated – legalized and regulated or not legalized and regulated. I want no interference at all, no regulation whatsoever. A woman’s own conscience is all there is between her and an abortion if she decides she wants one. That’s all.

    My question is who pays for an elective abortion when a woman cannot pay herself? And are there negative reverberations on all women and men when taxpayers, whose moral decision is to not support abortion, are forced to pay for abortion? We know that abortion is a wedge issue. How is it being exploited to the benefit of those people who do benefit from a divided populace and a confused electorate?

    If you care to continue this discussion, respond. But if you can’t be civilized please don’t bother. I am not interested in doing battle with small minded people. Thank you.

  • Jaimie11

    “Yes, because some people have been convinced that they have a right to force their personal beliefs down the throats of everyone else.” I paraphrase your words.

    See, you believe that too. You just leave the god out of it and then think you are so advanced, such a superior specimen of human being who was once a fetus somebody wanted.

    Your prejudice is no better than the prejudice of those you are prejudiced against.

  • Anonymous

    Taking this a bit at a time and out of order: I have not indicated my position on abortion; you have chosen to make assumptions which, it turns out, are false. Not that it matters; that wasn’t the point anyway. It’s just that if I *am* wrong on this, I want to know it; but then, with no names or specifics or anything else checkable, how can I know you’re right? And as it happens, I do know a fair amount of “how tax revenues are collected and spent,” etc.

    What I don’t know, and therefore what I have been asking about, is (again, key word here) PRECISELY how tax money is supposedly used to pay for abortions. Concretely and specifically. That’s all I asked in the first place, and it’s still all I’m trying to find out, and it’s one thing (about the only thing) you seem to have completely left out of your very polite five-paragraph reply. I am not asking for a general explanation of the flow of money through the government. Just the specific piece you claim exists that pays for abortion, contrary to federal law against doing so, and how it goes about doing this.

    And thank you.

  • Anonymous

    Well, of course, being busy accounts quite well for not (when I wrote that) having made a response to my previous post, so perhaps I shouldn’t have said “refused”… but when you did respond, your responses did not include an answer to the question put forth. It’s really very frustrating; I don’t know what it’s like from your side of the conversation, but from this side it feels very much like asking directions and getting the following exchange:

    “Say, how do you get to Pittsburgh from here?”
    –”You can drive there.”
    “OK, but how do you get there? What roads should I take, and where do I turn?”
    –”Just get in your car and go.”
    “But I don’t know which direction it is from here. Could you please tell me what roads to use?”
    –”I am surprised you are unaware of how an automobile works and how the highway system is structured.”

    That’s why I said “refused”. It’s not the politest word available, and I’m sorry for that, but I was trying to get the point home and nothing seemed to be working.

  • Jaimie11

    What is the question then?

  • Jaimie11

    States make that decision for themselves – here for instance.

    http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion

    Now if you know so much why not tell me. I am interested in the ethics of all this and how we are manipulated for purposes that benefit the power elite to our detriment. There is always a fight going
    on between the opposing sides – one side doesn’t want to pay and the other side says you must.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you; that link was very helpful. I still don’t understand why you didn’t just say “there’s an exception to the ban for Medicaid coverage in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother, and some states go further” in the first place, but thank you.

    Now if I know so much why not tell you… what, exactly? That’s far too vague a question to answer, and the vast majority of any answer I could give would be grossly off-topic.

    As others have said, though, we simply *cannot* require that every single thing that tax money is spent on goes to something that *no* taxpayer is against. Demanding universal approval is senseless.

  • Jaimie11

    hyhy, did you miss this section?

    “Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV).”

    I take this to mean that federal and state tax revenues are used to fund elective abortion not related to rape, incest, or saving the life or health of the mother.

  • Anonymous

    More wacko news from the American Taliban party…the GOP. Religious ideological driven laws are what defines the Governments of places like Iran and the former government of Afghanistan. Leave it up to these half educated cretans who get their facts (and I use that word loosely and laughably) from fat drug addicted junior college drop out nicotine abusing draft dodging know nothing masters of false correlation and this is the result. I have confidence, although not alot that the clear thinking populace of the State of South Dakota will take a lesson from Egyptions and not allow agents of a perverse amnd blood thirsty religious cult make governmental policy that calls on the murder of Medical Doctors performing a procedure on a bundle of cells at the request of a women.

  • Anonymous

    It is what they sincerely believe their God tells them to do….just like Islamic radicals. Christians are more like Islamic jihadists than they possibly know

  • Anonymous

    Well you are factually wrong…self defense laws pertaining to concealed carry vary from State to State. In my state you can” put yourself ” in the place of a person being attacked and intervene with deadly force if justified. You can ALWAYS use lethal force inside the walls of your own home, no license required. No, this is about religious fanatics infiltrating a secular government and imposing their will through law on other people. Just like school boards try to force teachers to teach the magic of creationism in science class and state legislatures make it illegal to buy alcohol on Sunday.

  • Anonymous

    No, I didn’t miss it: that’s the “and some states go further.” I cannot tell from that whether it’s federal money involved or only state, but there seems no reason to assume federal because, being outside the exception, that would be illegal.

    But, again, demanding that no tax money be spent unless *everyone* agrees is absurd.

Google+