South Dakota proposes open season on abortion providers. No bag limit. Like vermin.

[catsittingstill]

CBS has an article here.

I find the Jensen quote particularly telling.  He supposedly wrote this law to give a pregnant woman the right to defend herself against a "boyfriend" punching her in the abdomen to make her miscarry because he doesn't want to pay child support.  Meaning he supposedly thinks she doesn't have the right to defend herself against physical assault now.

The options here are many and none of them good.  1) He believes that women don't have rights.  2) He believes that women who have had sex don't have rights.  3) He never thinks about the actual human being in the "pregnant woman" scenario at all--she never crosses his mind.  4) He is arguing in bad faith for the purpose of convincing decent but not particularly sharp people to support a law permitting the murder of abortion providers.

His defense is that the law would apply only to people committing illegal acts, and abortion is legal, so abortion providers will be safe (ha ha.)

Here is the text of the actual bill.  The relevant part is that the redefinition (of murder to justifiable homicide) would apply: 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.

That "or" means that the felony part need not apply.

The options here are twofold and neither of them good.  1) He and all twenty-two of the legislators who cosponsored the bill are so completely incompetent at writing basic directions that they are completely unfitted to be allowed to write laws--which will be interpreted from what is written, after all, not what they think they wrote.  2) He and all twenty-two of his cosponsors know perfectly well what they wrote and are arguing in bad faith to convince people who didn't read the actual text of the bill to support a law permitting the murder of abortion providers.

Make no mistake, the Pro-Life terrorists are out there, waiting with their sniper rifles and their bombs.  Since 1993 they have killed eight doctors and tried to kill another seventeen.  They use the "justifiable homicide" defense at their trials (unsuccessfully so far.)  They want you to know they might kill you, and to be afraid.  And many in the larger Pro-Life movement make no bones about publicly supporting Pro-Life terrorism.

If you're feeling kind of tired, having been repeatedly rallied to defend women from having our sexual behavior policed by the State?  That is the intent of the many-pronged conservative assault on women's basic right to be left the heck alone while we get on with our private lives.
 

Comments

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Or (5) Jensen is a violent psychotic who has found social acceptance for his violence. I think a close look at Jensen's background would probably turn up violent sexual obsessions, perhaps an actual history of violence. But who pays any attention to state legislators?

The original national coverage of this bill comes from Mother Jones magazine, here: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

As I said in Toms blog, what about Justifiable Homicide against moronic politicians. Sorry, There are so many reasons to be thankful that I'm living in Canada. this kind of crap is just oe of them. Canada is not perfect, far from it, but we do SEEM to have a buffer against this kind of insanity.

[occams_pyramid]

Option 2.3) They accept that this law won't permit the murder of abortion providers because (and *only* because) abortion is legal. Next step in their plan, make abortion illegal.

[inamac.livejournal.com]

Perhaps some female senator (do they have any?) could propose a bill allowing a woman to castrate any man who looks at her admiringly. Just as an abortion preventative measure, you understand...

(Cynicism as a defence against rage and sorrow.)

[bigbumble.livejournal.com]

Rachel Madow named an interesting fictional (I think it is fictional anyway.) country the other night, Antiabortistan.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

What I don't understand is why they never seem to get tired. I wish they would. I want a break.

[kittyguitar.livejournal.com]

I think a woman's right to complete her pregnancy is just as important as any other reproductive rights she may have, and I would like to see specific laws in place to protect it. Like identifying pregnancy loss as a specific source of "bodily harm" under the law, for instance. It bothers me that one side of the abortion debate is using this very important premise as a foot-in-the-door, forcing the other side to oppose it or appear as though they do.

Ultimately, while a fetus may not have full human status it does have value, especially to the woman who has chosen to carry and give life to it. The loss of it is a real loss, and the taking away of it a real wrong. There must be some way for the law to protect women against this loss without taking away their other rights--mustn't there?