SD “Abortion Doctor” Bill
The South Dakota legislature is about to consider the following 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. 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.
Critics have said that the bill would make it justifiable homicide to kill an abortion doctor where doing so would prevent an imminent, legal abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The bill’s sponsor disputes this. According to TPM, he says that the bill would not apply to an abortion doctor performing a legal abortion because the abortion would not be homicide.
On a purely textual reading of the bill, the critics seem to have the stronger argument. The bill does not permit killing someone about to commit “homicide” on a fetus. It permits killing someone about to harm your unborn child “in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child” (sec. 1) OR who is about to “do some great personal injury” to the fetus of another person (sec. 2).
Section 1 appears to only provide a right of self-defense and to extend that right to one’s fetus. A woman seeking an abortion would not be the one trying to kill the doctor in defense of the fetus she is about to abort. So this part of the bill is broadly consistent with the sponsor’s characterization. But Section 2 extends the right of to kill in self-defense to encompass a right to kill in defense of a limited universe of third parties — those who are husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress or “the unborn child of any such enumerated person.” If I’m reading the bill correctly, this could easily lead to a situation in which the law would justify the killing of a doctor performing a legal abortion. If a woman is seeking an abortion and her husband (or father or mother) does not approve, that person could kill the abortion doctor (as long as the danger to the fetus is imminent) and then claim the protection of this statute.
UPDATE: As a commenter points out below, section 1 could be read to empower fathers to kill an abortion doctor. I had been reading the “such person” language as limiting the right under section 1 to the person undergoing an assault that also threatens the fetus (with section 2 covering aid by third parties), but I agree with the commenter that it could be read as applying to fathers as well. Needless to say, this further cuts in favor of the critics of the bill and against the sponsor’s understanding.
Mr. Penalver –
I agree with your last paragraph, why is the offered definition of killing a fetus not homicide? Is it because is SD law a fetus is defined as not a homo/person/fully human being?
Ann — I don’t know. That’s just what the sponsor said. I haven’t independently confirmed SD law on this point. Many states treat nonconsensual harm to the fetus (e.g., as in an assault against a pregnant woman where the fetus is harmed) as a crime. My main point is that the bill, as written, does not require that the harm against the fetus be criminal in order to justify the killing of the person perpetrating the harm. And so the sponsor is wrong about his own bill. Whether he’s wrong about other aspects of SD law, I don’t know.
As i read it, Section 1 would also cover a father who kills a doctor about to perform an abortion on the father’s unborn child. It’s not limited to just the mother
So, I don’t think it is “broadly consistent with the sponsor’s characterization.”
Rather than once again attacking pro-life efforts, how about making a positive contribution and suggesting legislative language to allow for the defense of unborn children where someone, such as a mugger or abusive boyfriend, attacks the woman, as for example, punching and kicking her in the abdomen?
Pro- life efforts????? Wow!!
It is inconsistent to protect a child in their mother’s womb depending on whether the person perpetrating the harm has consent from the mother or not. Certainly one could argue that the fact that I am a human being does not depend upon my Mother’s opinion. This would not be the case if every child in their mother’s womb was recognized as being wholly human. Clearly the fact that nothing is added to or subtracted from the DNA of a child in their mother’s womb and thus that child is wholly human is a scientific fact and not simply a matter of opinion. That being said, it is unclear what the term “reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony” means. It is clear that if South Dakota had a Law that recognized the fact that every human individual is a person, then our only concern would be in regards to self-defense, at what point is homicide justified?
Amy Sullivan has a good deconstruction of this, and links to analyses by Greg Sargent and Dave Weigel:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/15/re-so-much-for-thou-shalt-not-kill/
legislative language to allow for the defense of unborn children where someone, such as a mugger or abusive boyfriend, attacks the woman, as for example, punching and kicking her in the abdomen?
Bender,
Are you saying it is currently legal to punch and kick a pregnant woman in the stomach?
David, Bender is saying that when someone attacks, punches and kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach it should be obvious that there are two victims because there are two victims.
If the bill is this confusing in its language, can the sponsors stand up righteously and say “but we didn’t mean that!” when someone decides to take out an abortion-performing doctor?
Methinks not!
And people wonder why many aggressively ardent “pro-life” people are not to be trusted? I sure as heck don’t trust them.
“David, Bender is saying that when someone attacks, punches and kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach it should be obvious that there are two victims because there are two victims.”
And that is already the law. Typical statutes include California Penal Code section 187 (murder) and the federal version, 18 USC section 1841.
“suggesting legislative language ”
In 22-16-34, the first and third clauses both reference acts that are inherently illegal: “murder” and “felony”. The second clause describes an act that would bring abortion (which is not illegal) to most of our minds if we saw it on its own. I’m no expert on legal language, but if the authors of the law are in fact trying to do what they say they are trying to do, and not crafting a bit of nod-and-a-wink anti abortion publicity, I think they should be able to find a way to write that second clause in a way that specifically implies illegality (oh, I’ll take the plunge: how about adding “in the course of attempting to commit a felony” in a key location.)
Oh this is a good one!
I was born and raised in South Dakota, and understand how tickled Dakotans get when the intelligentsia gets nervous or worried like they get about this sort of thing.
South Dakotans in general and the Sioux in particular, have a particularly neat sense of humor. You need one if you are going to thrive in that area.
One the one hand Dakotans are independent types, most are Republican, and while most SoDakers are Protestant, almost all are staunchly Pro-Life. No abortionist would feel safe living in SD and that is fine by me and by a heavy, heavy majority of South Dakotans.
On the other hand they understand very well that this sort of language will not be enacted into law. It is way to sort of speak their collective mind if you will, and at the same time for some extra fun, to get a rise out of the abortionists in Minnesota (Planned Parenhood) who fly the one abortionist in the state to an abortion mill in Rapid City once or twice a month to do his grubby “work”.
South Dakotans know very well that life is not easy and that nobody is perfect. They understand poverty and hard (often very hard) work in uncomfortable condistions and at low pay; they understand stuggle and despair. They also understand that abortion is murder plain and simple, and nothing any theologian from St Thomas or Notre Dame or anywhere else says will change their mind.
While they are polite enough to sit quietly listening to some half baked high-minded navel gazer or some wannabee theologian or “expert” talk fancy for awhile about how “the abortion issues is complicated”, when the “expert” had finished, most Dakotans would simply note that one glance at what abortionists toss if the garbage is enough to show any reasonable person that the good doctor just slaughtered a baby.
And so: Way to go South Dakota – see you in the summertime!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Dakota#Religion
According to a 2001 survey, 86% of South Dakotans described themselves as being members of a Christian denomination, while 8% said that they were not religious and 3% claimed faith in a non-Christian religion.
The largest Christian denomination was Lutheran (27%), followed closely by * Roman Catholic at 25%.* Other Christian denominations mentioned included Methodist (13%), Baptist (4%), Presbyterian (4%), Pentecostal (2%), Congregational (2%), Episcopal/Anglican (1%), and Seventh-day Adventist (1%). 7% responded either as a non-denominational Christian or a Protestant, while 2% refused to answer
Thanks for the statistics Jimmy Mac; I would only clarify that Catholicism is not “a Christian denomination”
It cannot be, if we think about it for a moment; if Catholicism is just one of many Christian denominations, Protestantism basically loses its meaning altogether.
What I mean to say is that Protestantism needs a reference, and Catholicism is (or at least provides) that reference.
“Protestantism needs a reference, and Catholicism is (or at least provides) that reference.”
Hm. Nothing stands still. Protestantism is no longer primarily a protest against something; it’s a thing (comprising many things) in and of itself.