Wow South Dakota, wow...
In an article from Mother Jones and shared through the Huffington Post, people in South Dakota want to change their defintion of "justifiable homicide" so that it includes "killings to prevent harm to a fetus". That means doctors that perform abortions would be threatened.
The bill would alter "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. "
How can you make a bill that allows someone to kill someone while they are not breaking any laws. How can a bill allow anyone to kill anyone else. Isn't murder illegal in South Dakota?
In another article from the Huffington Post where the person who suggested the bill says that "the bill is being misinterpreted". The wording has been changed to self defense.
"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."
Is there a localized outbreak of women having their abdomens beaten by people who want to avoid paying child support? Is it not already a crime in South Dakota to beat on your ex-girlfriend's abdomen? And is it not yet permissible in South Dakota to defend oneself, with deadly force if necessary, against the threat of immediate harm to your person? (Maybe South Dakota is simply lagging behind on legal protections for ex-girlfriends.)"