We've witnessed some pretty insane things coming out of South Dakota for a long time now including the creepy Bill Napoli and his ' Virgin Rant" of 2006 on the only acceptable scenario to allow for an abortion:
BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
South Dakota is now taking it a step farther in their attempts to outlaw abortion. This one might top the list.
A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.
--
UPDATE: Jensen spoke to Mother Jones on Tuesday morning, after this story was published. He says that he disagrees with this interpretation of the bill. "This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."
Greg Sargent interviewed Jensen and he used an insane analogy to defend his bill:
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."
I wonder how many of these cases have landed in SD's court system? I'd like to call this the South Dakota-Scott Roeder bill since Roeder, who murdered Dr. Tiller in Kansas, used a very similar argument as his defense his horrific violent act.
He had to kill so others could live. That's the argument defense attorneys are set to make Dec. 22 for Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion activist accused of shooting abortion doctor George Tiller. This is an about face in strategy from their previous statement back in November when Roeder seemingly confessed to the Associated Press that he murdered the prominent and controversial abortion doctor "because of the necessity defense," saying that he was defending "preborn children."
Can you image how many Randall Terry Lunatic Zombies would descend upon our nation if justifiable homicide became lawful in this way? PFAW is condemning this bill too.
