South Dakota considering making killing abortion doctors legal --- thanks, Republicans!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2011 10:20 PM GMT
    PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota bill would expand the definition of justifiable homicide to include killings intended to prevent harm to a fetus, prompting abortion rights activists to claim it provides a possible defense for killing doctors who perform abortions...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41604603/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2011 10:32 PM GMT
    No, he's just after the abusive ex-boyfriends:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/lawmaker-behind-south-dakota-justifiable-homicide-bill_n_823553.html
    Phil Jensen did not return Sheppard's calls, but he did speak to The Plum Line's Greg Sargent this morning, and guess what? He feels his law is being badly misinterpreted! "This has nothing to do with abortion," he says.

    Since the original outcry, a change has been made to the bill: it only allows the "justifiable homicide" defense in cases of self-defense. It's no longer applicable to fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, or husbands. So what does this law seek to do?

    When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn't abortion providers, he provided the following example:

    "Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."

    Is there a localized outbreak of women having their abdomens beaten by people who want to avoid paying child support? Is it not already a crime in South Dakota to beat on your ex-girlfriend's abdomen? And is it not yet permissible in South Dakota to defend oneself, with deadly force if necessary, against the threat of immediate harm to your person? (Maybe South Dakota is simply lagging behind on legal protections for ex-girlfriends.)


    Woman goes to get surgery for fibroids...surgeon gets shot. Statement to the police:
    "I suspected my girlfriend was pregnant, even though she said no. I therefore shot her gynecologist, since she did something to my girlfriend in the OR...she must have aborted my unborn child!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2011 10:36 PM GMT
    What, no US right-wingers who support this policy of killing abortion providers? Your silence is deafening. Do tell us what you think, and what US politicians you support that back this. Hint: they're all Republicans,
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2011 11:03 PM GMT
    The fact that more men on here aren't up in arms about this is a big reason why gay rights and women's rights haven't made as much progress as we'd like. We just don't support each other enough.

    This law is declaring open season on abortion providers and women who need abortions in the same way that the "twinkie defense" said it's okay to beat up or kill a fag if he comes on to you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2011 11:19 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThe fact that more men on here aren't up in arms about this is a big reason why gay rights and women's rights haven't made as much progress as we'd like. We just don't support each other enough.

    This law is declaring open season on abortion providers and women who need abortions in the same way that the "twinkie defense" said it's okay to beat up or kill a fag if he comes on to you.


    The twinkie defense, lol, 'gay panic'. So this would be 'abortion panic' defense?



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 2:52 AM GMT
    jprichva saidI say it should be open season on asshole legislators. Don't retreat, reload!


    Be careful, don't use Sarah Palin's rhetoric against the opposition. They will call it terrorist threats. Fine for Saint Sarah to say it, but not us.

    Please also note that the right-wingers here don't come out against this. Whether members here oppose abortion or not, since when is it OK to kill your ideological opponents in the US?

    Evidently when they aren't on the right wing with them. An interesting non-reaction from the righties here, that says much more than their silence, and about their real interest in democratic and US Constitutional principles. Helping us to understand even better who and what they are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 3:01 AM GMT
    Hey TWINKIE!
    "A South Dakota bill would expand the definition of justifiable homicide to include killings intended to prevent harm to a fetus, prompting abortion rights activists to claim it provides a possible defense for killing doctors who perform abortions, Mother Jones magazine reported Tuesday.

    The GOP-backed proposal, House Bill 1171, was sponsored by an abortion rights foe, Rep. Phil Jensen. It passed out of the House Judiciary Committee last week. ArgusLeader.com said a vote set for Tuesday on the House floor was deferred and the bill was on the agenda for Wednesday."
    How about them GOPers now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 3:06 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said

    Please also note that the right-wingers here don't come out against this. Whether members here oppose abortion or not, since when is it OK to kill your ideological opponents in the US?

    Evidently when they aren't on the right wing with them. An interesting non-reaction from the righties here, that says much more than their silence, and about their real interest in democratic and US Constitutional principles. Helping us to understand even better who and what they are.




    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    What this really says is your intent for creating this thread was to play games and try to get a reaction from non-liberals? Please go back to living a lie---you were probably a nice person as a straight man.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 4:50 AM GMT
    deanaane said
    Art_Deco said

    Please also note that the right-wingers here don't come out against this. Whether members here oppose abortion or not, since when is it OK to kill your ideological opponents in the US?

    Evidently when they aren't on the right wing with them. An interesting non-reaction from the righties here, that says much more than their silence, and about their real interest in democratic and US Constitutional principles. Helping us to understand even better who and what they are.




    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    What this really says is your intent for creating this thread was to play games and try to get a reaction from non-liberals? Please go back to living a lie---you were probably a nice person as a straight man.



    And yet you completely proved Art's point in that you didn't even deal with the subject but used the opportunity to attack him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 4:50 AM GMT
    deanaane saidWhat this really says is your intent for creating this thread was to play games and try to get a reaction from non-liberals? Please go back to living a lie---you were probably a nice person as a straight man.

    Nope, I became much more mellow, friendly and agreeable after I first retired from the Army, and then came out a few months later. You would NOT have wanted to have met me in uniform, especially if you were in uniform yourself (were you ever?). I was a totally take-no-prisoners guy, and you didn't get in my way or cross paths with me.

    To paraphrase from Gilbert & Sullivan's HMS Pinafore, I was the very model of a modern right-wing dogmatist. Except I was never homophobic, and to the contrary, was actually very gay-supportive throughout my military career. Perhaps an inner voice prevented me, I dunno. But whatever, I never did ill to a GLBT person in all my 25 years in uniform, nor permitted it to be done within my span of authority.

    So please take your venom elsewhere. If you wish to comment on what South Dakota Republicans are trying to do, then please do. If you want to attack me personally, and my private life, be aware I'm not very far removed from that guy who wore a uniform. And I will take you on so quick you will rue the day. The choice is yours.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 5:17 AM GMT
    deanaane said
    Art_Deco said

    Please also note that the right-wingers here don't come out against this. Whether members here oppose abortion or not, since when is it OK to kill your ideological opponents in the US?

    Evidently when they aren't on the right wing with them. An interesting non-reaction from the righties here, that says much more than their silence, and about their real interest in democratic and US Constitutional principles. Helping us to understand even better who and what they are.




    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    What this really says is your intent for creating this thread was to play games and try to get a reaction from non-liberals? Please go back to living a lie---you were probably a nice person as a straight man.





    The fact that you're disgusted by the fact that someone posted this information, rather than being disgusted by this truly disgusting and extremist piece of "legislation" being pushed by the Repubs in SDAK doesn't make you look good.
    FYI - the OP's motivation is not the issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 6:18 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    Art_Deco saidPlease also note that the right-wingers here don't come out against this. Whether members here oppose abortion or not, since when is it OK to kill your ideological opponents in the US.

    You forget that I'm an orthodox Stalinist. Labor camps! Show trials! Gulags! Firing squads! I miss the old USSR.

    You really need to put on your Stalin mustache. Actually, Guantanamo and secret CIA black prisons during Bush were sorta like the Gulags, but we're supposed to forget about all those. Just wear your American flag lapel pin. and sing another chorus of "America the Free" and you'll be alright again. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 9:40 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Please also note that the right-wingers here don't come out against this. Whether members here oppose abortion or not, since when is it OK to kill your ideological opponents in the US?

    I don't really consider myself to be overly right wing (though everybody is free to argue that point.) I also do not really understand the US justice system completely. However, even if a state were to say that it is justifiable homicide to kill all doctors, is it not up to the federal government to prosecute? So long as the feds don't pass such an insane law, would the person not still be charged in a federal court?

    I suppose that I am asking if there is really any danger of a murderous rampage against doctors going unprosecuted because of this law? Would you be able to walk up to doctors in the street and shoot them in front of cops while explaining that you are just "protecting" your unborn child? If not, is there any real reason for people to get overly worked up?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 16, 2011 10:51 AM GMT
    Plain and simple .........

    Republican right wing American Taliban
    ....... The very definition of State sponsored terrorism
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 12:24 PM GMT
    Christian73 said


    And yet you completely proved Art's point in that you didn't even deal with the subject but used the opportunity to attack him.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    I participated in this thread when it appeared to me that AD is playing games. It is also amusing that the friends of art_deco are the only ones to participate---And as far as an opportunity to attack? AD and FOAD are always on the attack.

    And now that AD is defending his lie is quite interesting/amusing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 1:00 PM GMT
    west77 said
    Art_Deco said
    Please also note that the right-wingers here don't come out against this. Whether members here oppose abortion or not, since when is it OK to kill your ideological opponents in the US?

    I don't really consider myself to be overly right wing (though everybody is free to argue that point.) I also do not really understand the US justice system completely. However, even if a state were to say that it is justifiable homicide to kill all doctors, is it not up to the federal government to prosecute? So long as the feds don't pass such an insane law, would the person not still be charged in a federal court?

    I suppose that I am asking if there is really any danger of a murderous rampage against doctors going unprosecuted because of this law? Would you be able to walk up to doctors in the street and shoot them in front of cops while explaining that you are just "protecting" your unborn child? If not, is there any real reason for people to get overly worked up?


    West -

    Murder is for the most part prosecuted at the state level, though there are exceptions for jurisdiction. For example, if the murder occurs on federal property or if it occurs during a terrorist act. This is further complicated by varying state statutes that define murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide somewhat differently.

    The danger here isn't a "rampage" per se, but rather legitimizing a longstanding attempt by those who have killed abortion doctors to defend themselves by saying it's justifiable homicide. Despite abortion being nominally legal in the US, state laws have been passed and many are being pushed now, that severely restrict the accessibility of abortion. .

    This, coupled with the fact that so many abortion providers have been murdered and threatened with violence, means that there are many places where a woman cannot find an abortion provider. For instance, Wichita, KS, a fairly large city doesn't have a single abortion provider since Dr. George Killer was killed by a pro-life terrorist. If this law passes, it would basically declare open season on abortion providers in SD.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 7:19 PM GMT
    Interesting; thanks for that. I think that when I heard that Lawler was being charged federally before the state could charge him that I thought this was the "norm." Probably has something to do with it being a representative and a federal judge that he killed that makes the feds have priority?

    There is a dark part of me who wants to see how this plays out. That same part of me wonders how long until somebody who shots an abortion doctor is charged with a "hate crime" being as they are an identifiable group. Finally, there is at least one abortion doctor who could be killed and I would not shed a tear. Perhaps they could ship Dr. Gosnell to Dakota after this? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41154527/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 16, 2011 9:02 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    jprichva saidI say it should be open season on asshole legislators. Don't retreat, reload!


    Be careful, don't use Sarah Palin's rhetoric against the opposition. They will call it terrorist threats. Fine for Saint Sarah to say it, but not us.

    Please also note that the right-wingers here don't come out against this. Whether members here oppose abortion or not, since when is it OK to kill your ideological opponents in the US?

    Evidently when they aren't on the right wing with them. An interesting non-reaction from the righties here, that says much more than their silence, and about their real interest in democratic and US Constitutional principles. Helping us to understand even better who and what they are.




    Art, did you ever stop to think that maybe some of us simply don't have the annoyingly absurd knee-jerk reaction to every thing that comes down the pike as YOU do? I can't imagine anyone here supporting such a bill, nor do I think such a bill will ever pass. Even if it did, it would never hold any water once the courts got involved so - PLEASE - have a little common sense and stop getting so worked up over things that aren't even likely to happen.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Feb 16, 2011 9:39 PM GMT
    Legalizing the killing of people with whom we disagree...
    I suspect that the Federal courts will have something to say about this.
    I am hopeful that not even the activist Republican U.S. Supreme Court would support this lunacy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 10:12 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidArt, did you ever stop to think that maybe some of us simply don't have the annoyingly absurd knee-jerk reaction to every thing that comes down the pike as YOU do? I can't imagine anyone here supporting such a bill, nor do I think such a bill will ever pass. Even if it did, it would never hold any water once the courts got involved so - PLEASE - have a little common sense and stop getting so worked up over things that aren't even likely to happen.

    Indeed I did stop to think. And realize that if this passes, and a Federal Court overturns it, guys like you will be screaming "activist Courts!" They're only "activist" when they decide against right-wing positions.

    The rest of the time, when they confirm right-wing positions, like the unlimited corporate funding of US elections that overturned a century of legal precedent, everything is OK, or haven't you noticed? Well, no, you wouldn't.

    Courts are only "activist" when they rule in ways you don't like. But you'll avail yourself of the courts whenever you see a chance for yourselves. Total hypocrites.

    But back to this bill about legalizing the killing of doctors who offer abortions. You DO support this, because you support the Republicans who are proposing it.

    If you opposed it, you would oppose a nutty party that would even propose such a thing. You don't, and indeed your cheer them, therefore you are in league with these guys. It's a rather simple thing. You support lawmakers who propose these things, which means you support these proposals, too. Seems rather obvious to me.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 17, 2011 12:33 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    But back to this bill about legalizing the killing of doctors who offer abortions. You DO support this, because you support the Republicans who are proposing it.

    A) I do NOT support it, and this is true because I am telling you I DO NOT SUPPORT IT. I would never support the killing of anyone.

    B) I do not live in South Dakota. I did not vote for anyone in South Dakota. I can barely name a single politician who represents South Dakota. I've never even been to South Dakota, so to say I "Support the Republicans who are proposing this" is nothing more than your head needing to be examined.


    If you opposed it, you would oppose a nutty party that would even propose such a thing. You don't, and indeed your cheer them, therefore you are in league with these guys.

    You really are a tool. It would be amusing if it were not so, well, pathetic. Here you go again, painting an entire political party based on some ridiculous bill in a state which is among one of the smallest populations in the USA.

    It's a rather simple thing. You support lawmakers who propose these things, which means you support these proposals, too. Seems rather obvious to me.


    Until you can name a single lawmaker who I personally support that has proposed anything even close to this ridiculous bill, then you're just babbling nonsense -- per your status quo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 11:03 PM GMT
    Wow... just... wow...

    This man has to either be completely dense or lying through his teeth when he stated that it was on behalf of any woman in danger of being murdered by her husband. The fetus is enclosed in the woman's womb, right? Forgive me, since law is a subject that I'm not completely familiar with, then wouldn't she be able to use self-defense on the attacker?

    If so, then at best this law is a complete moot point. I hope that Denny Daugaard doesn't even see it on his desk.