Do you really see a need for this law? Have there been cases where parents have been convicted of homicide for protecting their unborn children?
It's probably mostly being passed to make a statement. But I don't see any real harm.
From previous threads I had thought you weren't a big fan of meaningless legislative grandstanding.
I'm not, really. But this is a law passed by the legislature of a relatively unimportant state, which will not have any real impact, negative or positive. It only potentially affects the few hundred thousand people living in SD.
So, why should the rest of us care, really?
We're important...
I agree with MM and bgrahmbo, this is just grandstanding. Yes there are crazies, but you can't judge a group by it's outliers.
An incendiary story by Mother Jones making the rounds on the Web reports that a law being considered in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to apply to killings intended to prevent harm to unborn children. Mother Jones writes that the measure "could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions."
I just had a spirited conversation with the bill's chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.
"It would if abortion was illegal," he told me. "This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion."
Yeah as fucked up as abortion rights in SD are, i don't think this is an example of it.
Jensen tells me he is considering the following change to the language of the proposal (the new part is in bold):
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 that is unlawful and 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.
That would make it clear that "justifiable homicide" can only apply in response to an unlawful act, which would obviously not include abortion, which is legal.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Jensen tells me he is considering the following change to the language of the proposal (the new part is in bold):
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 that is unlawful and 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.
That would make it clear that "justifiable homicide" can only apply in response to an unlawful act, which would obviously not include abortion, which is legal.
Makes sense. This was pretty clearly the intent of the law (regardless of whatever political motivations are obviously present) and it's pretty clearly how it would have been interpreted in court. But if wording it differently prevents a bunch of scaremongering (and potentially some lone wacko testing the defense), then that's probably best.
Posts
We're important...
I agree with MM and bgrahmbo, this is just grandstanding. Yes there are crazies, but you can't judge a group by it's outliers.
Yeah as fucked up as abortion rights in SD are, i don't think this is an example of it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Makes sense. This was pretty clearly the intent of the law (regardless of whatever political motivations are obviously present) and it's pretty clearly how it would have been interpreted in court. But if wording it differently prevents a bunch of scaremongering (and potentially some lone wacko testing the defense), then that's probably best.