![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumSouth Dakota is a lovely place, at least the parts I've seen (i.e. the Black Hills, and the western edge of the state). I enjoyed the times I've spent in Rapid City, Spearfish, and Deadwood.
South Dakota has some of the most inimical laws in regards to abortion in the country, heck they've tried to have laws making it risky to be a judge (it was a ballot initiative, and it lost, but...), as well as their attempt to outright ban it in the same time frame.
The citizenry killed the ban (and the proposed law in that link), but the legislature continues. The present flap is about an explicit extension of the principle of justifiable homicide.
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
The author of the bill says it's to make the law coherent, Jensen insisted that the bill's primary goal is to bring "consistency" to South Dakota criminal code, which already allows people who commit crimes that result in the death of fetuses to be charged with manslaughter. The new measure expands the state's definition of "justifiable homicide" by adding a clause applying it to someone who is "resisting any attempt" to murder of an unborn child or to harm an unborn child in a way likely to result in its death.
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."
(Sponsor defends bill)
Let's take a look at those laws which need to be, "clarified".
22-16-1.1. Fetal homicide--Felony--Application. Homicide is fetal homicide if the person knew, or reasonably should have known, that a woman bearing an unborn child was pregnant and caused the death of the unborn child without lawful justification and if the person:
(1) Intended to cause the death of or do serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman or the unborn child; or
(2) Knew that the acts taken would cause death or serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) If perpetrated without any design to effect death by a person engaged in the commission of any felony.
Fetal homicide is a Class B felony.
This section does not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, lawful or unlawful, to which the pregnant woman consented.
Ok, we've got the explicit exemption which covers Jensen in the statement that someone who used this in the way Scott Roeder tried to make an affirmative defense of justifiable homicide in his assassination of Dr. Tiller wouldn't be able to use this as a successful defense.
22-16-35. Justifiable homicide--Defense of person--Defense of other persons in household. 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 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.
Seems to me that already covers the examples Jensen gave.
22-16-34. Justifiable homicide--Resisting attempted murder--Resisting felony on person or in dwelling house. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
With that it seems the expansion isn't needed. I do wonder at the use of "master/mistress" (I suspect they are not talking about a lover not one's wife, but I could be wrong). If one is updating the law, the need to specifically include one's servants (and the reciprocal) in the list of people in a dwelling who can be protected seems a bit silly.
If you try to kill a fetus, without it being an abortion, that's a felony, under 22-16-1.1, Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her.
So Jensen is full of shit when he says there is a legal limbo for someone who kills someone trying to beat a fetus to death. At least two felonies are taking place, either one of which allows for killing the offender.
Which raises the question... since there is no substantive change in the meaning of the law, why change the phrasing?
1: To create an atmosphere more hostile to abortion providers
2: To create a status of," fetal person"
2a To bootstrap that "fetal person" into a status which defines abortion as murder, and makes it possible to ban.
3: To make it possible to legally kill abortion providers.
Three seems to be not the actual case; the laws in S. Dakota clearly make providing abortion legal (if really limited, and difficult... compare Section 22 of the code, which deals with homicide/suicide, to the sections which address abortion. It' s a much longer list for the latter, and has stuff like, 34-23A-1.3. Legislative findings--Relationship between pregnant woman and unborn child. The Legislature finds that there is an existing relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child during the entire period of gestation. which gets used to justify mandatory counseling, and, "cooling off" periods after the counseling), but I am certain the first is part of the agenda. They want the state to be seen as hostile to abortion, the providing, and the receiving.
This supports the ideology of the people who brag about how "Wichita has been cleansed, since Scott Roeder assassinated Dr. George Tiller.
More on that
So, I think it's several things, most of them implicit to the legislation. I think this because the explicit explanation is patently false. It is, at the very least, a dog whistle to the anti-choice crowd that S. Dakota is "on their side."
South Dakota has some of the most inimical laws in regards to abortion in the country, heck they've tried to have laws making it risky to be a judge (it was a ballot initiative, and it lost, but...), as well as their attempt to outright ban it in the same time frame.
The citizenry killed the ban (and the proposed law in that link), but the legislature continues. The present flap is about an explicit extension of the principle of justifiable homicide.
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
The author of the bill says it's to make the law coherent, Jensen insisted that the bill's primary goal is to bring "consistency" to South Dakota criminal code, which already allows people who commit crimes that result in the death of fetuses to be charged with manslaughter. The new measure expands the state's definition of "justifiable homicide" by adding a clause applying it to someone who is "resisting any attempt" to murder of an unborn child or to harm an unborn child in a way likely to result in its death.
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."
(Sponsor defends bill)
Let's take a look at those laws which need to be, "clarified".
22-16-1.1. Fetal homicide--Felony--Application. Homicide is fetal homicide if the person knew, or reasonably should have known, that a woman bearing an unborn child was pregnant and caused the death of the unborn child without lawful justification and if the person:
(1) Intended to cause the death of or do serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman or the unborn child; or
(2) Knew that the acts taken would cause death or serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) If perpetrated without any design to effect death by a person engaged in the commission of any felony.
Fetal homicide is a Class B felony.
This section does not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, lawful or unlawful, to which the pregnant woman consented.
Ok, we've got the explicit exemption which covers Jensen in the statement that someone who used this in the way Scott Roeder tried to make an affirmative defense of justifiable homicide in his assassination of Dr. Tiller wouldn't be able to use this as a successful defense.
22-16-35. Justifiable homicide--Defense of person--Defense of other persons in household. 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 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.
Seems to me that already covers the examples Jensen gave.
22-16-34. Justifiable homicide--Resisting attempted murder--Resisting felony on person or in dwelling house. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
With that it seems the expansion isn't needed. I do wonder at the use of "master/mistress" (I suspect they are not talking about a lover not one's wife, but I could be wrong). If one is updating the law, the need to specifically include one's servants (and the reciprocal) in the list of people in a dwelling who can be protected seems a bit silly.
If you try to kill a fetus, without it being an abortion, that's a felony, under 22-16-1.1, Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her.
So Jensen is full of shit when he says there is a legal limbo for someone who kills someone trying to beat a fetus to death. At least two felonies are taking place, either one of which allows for killing the offender.
Which raises the question... since there is no substantive change in the meaning of the law, why change the phrasing?
1: To create an atmosphere more hostile to abortion providers
2: To create a status of," fetal person"
2a To bootstrap that "fetal person" into a status which defines abortion as murder, and makes it possible to ban.
3: To make it possible to legally kill abortion providers.
Three seems to be not the actual case; the laws in S. Dakota clearly make providing abortion legal (if really limited, and difficult... compare Section 22 of the code, which deals with homicide/suicide, to the sections which address abortion. It' s a much longer list for the latter, and has stuff like, 34-23A-1.3. Legislative findings--Relationship between pregnant woman and unborn child. The Legislature finds that there is an existing relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child during the entire period of gestation. which gets used to justify mandatory counseling, and, "cooling off" periods after the counseling), but I am certain the first is part of the agenda. They want the state to be seen as hostile to abortion, the providing, and the receiving.
This supports the ideology of the people who brag about how "Wichita has been cleansed, since Scott Roeder assassinated Dr. George Tiller.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
More on that
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
So, I think it's several things, most of them implicit to the legislation. I think this because the explicit explanation is patently false. It is, at the very least, a dog whistle to the anti-choice crowd that S. Dakota is "on their side."
