Would you like to legally murder an abortion provider?

[Swatopluk]

There are people that think the best way to reduce abortions is to kill those that provide it.
Unfortunately in most locations the law considers that to be murder and few are willing to accept the consequences (for themselves at least).
But there is hope. South Dakota(' legislature) will soon vote on a bill redefining it as justifiable homicide because the motive is to safe the life of fetuses.
http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2011/02/pfaw-condemns-abortion-provider-murder-bill
Given the increasingly toxic atmosphere and even more growing madness and influence of extremists this is likely not an isolated case but other states will follow and try to top it (there already is something of a competition who can come up with the most whacky and odious law proposal).

[Aggie]

 

[pieces o nine]

I now live in a "city" in South Dakota.


Most of the people I know here  [admittedly a very, very, very small and very, very non-scientific portion of the population!]  behave as though they worship military personnel more than they worship Jesus, which is really saying something.

They claim to think the President was born in a furrin country and is -- even at this moment -- readying his jack-booted, UN-driven, non-Christian thugs to forcibly take their guns and extended ammo clips from their cold, dead hands.

And finally, they cannot *wait* to see an end to fact-based public education regarding contraception and accessibility to it (especially for women), which will led to a complete and final end to abortion! Praise The Lord! Amen!


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I forgot to add that -- obviously --  viagra, cialis and 'pumps' will be continued to be covered by health insurance.   

[Griffin NoName]

^^ what Aggie said

[Aggie]

I hear that the Repubs are trying to gut Planned Parenthood at the moment, too.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

The SD bill got shot down - or the legalizing-murder part did, anyway. And yeah, the House Tea Baggers are arguing for it. I f*cking hate these people.









(Ops put in the lame asterisk, but agrees with you.)

[Swatopluk]

Just a temporary setback, I presume

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Every time I hear those crazy proposals there is a part of me wishing them to actually pass and let nature do it's thing (people moving out). Is your state so full of physicians that you can afford the ones moving out? Then pass the law and see what happens!

I agree with Scrib: F*king idiots.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Warning:    Editorial content follows.   


When this particular bit of misogynistic hate-law came across my radar the other day, I read several different articles about it.

The "arguments" put forth by it's proponents were that it "clarified a person's right to protect his family" and other lunacy.

SD, along with many other Bible Belt states already has strong laws that protect a person's right to use lethal measures to defend him/herself from an attacker.  I'm not familiar with the exact language, but I cannot think it's not unlike here in Oklahomer:  all a defender needs to do, to get the police off his/her back if someone was shot, is claim that he/she "was in fear of his or her life from the 'attacker' ".   No real proof, other than the statements of the shooter, and the situation has to nominally be threatening, i.e. some circumstantial evidence that the dead person had indeed broken in, etc.

The newly proposed extension explicitly covered the "right" to defend a pregnant woman's fetus from perceived harm, with lethal force, regardless of the circumstances (circumstances were deliberately left vague).

What's pathetic, is that the older statutes permitting a person to defend his/her loved ones from perceptual imminent threat already covered the fetus, by stint of covering the pregnant woman...

... there was no need, legally, to extend this already-blanket (more or less) coverage to the fetus---except.

The exception was the circumstances, which were left so legally vague, that it could easily be interpreted as: "anyone may do whatever to someone who's about to harm a fetus".

Which is exactly what the proponents intended, in direct opposition to their public lies statements "justifying" this hate-speech fascism legalized jack-booted thuggery ah-hem.... legislation.

What surprises me more?

Is that a similar bill hasn't been proposed here in Oklahomer... or Texas....



/End Soapbox

[pieces o nine]

I've been wondering about a pregnant woman's potential legal culpability as regards these ill-thought-out bills. Clearly those advancing them are unaware of  [God or Nature]'s  spontaneous abortion-to-viable birth ratio.

Would a woman reporting to a hospital with a potential miscarriage, in-process miscarriage, or following a miscarriage be treated with as much hostility and suspicion as in some South American countries with "zero tolerance for abortion" laws?

Would the same people who are so strongly opposed to 'out-of-control, nanny state, over-regulation' feel justified in regulating what she eats, drinks, smokes, or *does* that might adversely affect a fetus? Would sins of health omission be just as prosecutable as sins of commission in this regard?

How does that square with the recent hysterically virulent rejection of health care for all, or the insistence that poor people must take any job available coupled with casual disregard for working conditions as long as the business owner's profits are protected and maximized?

If the woman has a health condition which counterindicates a pregnancy but conceives anyway --[religion, culture or the father disapproves of birth control or she is the victim of rape or incest]-- and complications (including manufactured 'religious morality' complications) cause her to miscarry, deliver a stillborn baby, or even die taking the fetus with her, would these religious zealots immediately prosecute the father for engendering a high-risk pregnancy so fraught with danger of death for the fetus?

The whole thing smacks of noxious, hypocritical churchianity.   

[Swatopluk]

Every time I hear those crazy proposals there is a part of me wishing them to actually pass and let nature do it's thing (people moving out). Is your state so full of physicians that you can afford the ones moving out? Then pass the law and see what happens!

I agree with Scrib: F*king idiots.

Be careful. That is the very intention. Even if abortion itself stays legal it must be made impossible to obtain one. The means is to scare, bully,legally harass etc. any physician that does abortions out of the state. The elites can always get the care they need but those in actual need often can't afford to travel abroad.

1.I've been wondering about a pregnant woman's potential legal culpability as regards these ill-thought-out bills. Clearly those advancing them are unaware of  [God or Nature]'s  spontaneous abortion-to-viable birth ratio.

2.Would a woman reporting to a hospital with a potential miscarriage, in-process miscarriage, or following a miscarriage be treated with as much hostility and suspicion as in some South American countries with "zero tolerance for abortion" laws?

3.Would the same people who are so strongly opposed to 'out-of-control, nanny state, over-regulation' feel justified in regulating what she eats, drinks, smokes, or *does* that might adversely affect a fetus? Would sins of health omission be just as prosecutable as sins of commission in this regard?

How does that square with the recent hysterically virulent rejection of health care for all, or the insistence that poor people must take any job available coupled with casual disregard for working conditions as long as the business owner's profits are protected and maximized?

4.If the woman has a health condition which counterindicates a pregnancy but conceives anyway --[religion, culture or the father disapproves of birth control or she is the victim of rape or incest]-- and complications (including manufactured 'religious morality' complications) cause her to miscarry, deliver a stillborn baby, or even die taking the fetus with her, would these religious zealots immediately prosecute the father for engendering a high-risk pregnancy so fraught with danger of death for the fetus?

The whole thing smacks of noxious, hypocritical churchianity.   

1.no but they don't care
2.yes.That's the 'ideal' they vie for
3.yes.Already law in some places
4.no.It's the woman's fault (she also probably lies about the father anyway)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

4.no.It's the woman's fault (she also probably lies about the father anyway)

<in mah best hillbilly accent>

... yeah..... those dam wimmin dressin' all "ask for it" an' be'like....



/ end sarcasm

[pieces o nine]

Actually, I'm not really kidding about the point numbered 4, above. If these people were successful in passing one of these 'defense of the lives of fetuses' type acts, it would be very interesting to seek prosecution of a man who impregnated a woman with counterindications for viable pregnancy.

When I say 'interesting' I mean in the legal/clinical sense, not in a flippant disregard to the human pain and heartache all around in such a situation. His actions wold show blatant disregard for the life of the fetus, no?

How about prosecuting the 'righteous' protesters attempting to block access to a clinic against a woman trying to *stop* a miscarriage by seeking immediate, closest medical assistance? (This occurred in Des Moines, Iowa, with further harassment from the righteous idiots continuing at the bereaved couple's home, work, etc.) By a cold reading of such a law, their *intentions* would be irrelevant: they would have aggressively interfered with a woman seeking to *save* her fetus.

On the other hand, could a man [it wold *have* to be the man, protecting his putative fatherhood rights, yes?] in such a case open fire into the crowd of clinic blockers, secure in the knowledge that *he* was safe from prosecution because he was trying to help his wife save their fetus and the protesters were endangering its life?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Every time I hear those crazy proposals there is a part of me wishing them to actually pass and let nature do it's thing (people moving out). Is your state so full of physicians that you can afford the ones moving out? Then pass the law and see what happens!

I agree with Scrib: F*king idiots.

Be careful. That is the very intention. Even if abortion itself stays legal it must be made impossible to obtain one. The means is to scare, bully,legally harass etc. any physician that does abortions out of the state. The elites can always get the care they need but those in actual need often can't afford to travel abroad.

I understand perfectly the intentions of from the first* and second** class republicans, is the consequences to the third*** class republicans what would be poetic justice even if every other human being is seriously affected. It would be beautiful to force them to confront the consequences of their choices.

*the rich who think they shouldn't pay taxes
**the fundies who want a Xtian fundamentalist state
*** the morons who haven't realized that they don't belong to the other 2 groups.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I agree strongly with both Pieces & Zono's comments.

I want to second the observation, that few of these conservatives recognized consequences of... well, anything, really.

That's what gets creationists into trouble:  they cannot recognize the consequences of rejecting the science behind evolution.

These people truly do not think beyond the obvious.