SD wants to endrun Roe v Wade by legalizing murder of docs

[The Cat-Tribe]

If there aren't even any abortionists in SD, this OBVIOUSLY isn't directed at them.

Nice sophistry.

There are doctors who come to South Dakota to perform abortions.

But, pray tell, to whom does this law apply that the unamended statute does not? Who threatens the life of an unborn without harming the mother or threatening to harm the mother or threatening to commit a felony?

[Nulono]

For those disputing that this could have good intentions, consider the case of Jaclyn Kurr, who was convicted of manslaughter for defending her unborn quadruplets.

And when did I claim to be a Christian? I'm not.



Even the executive director of NARAL SD doesn't think that's the intent. The intent is to allow a pregnant woman and her family to defend their unborn children.

I didn't have a point; I was asking for yours.

Let's check what the actual source the pro-life blog you posted linked to says about the law and NARAL SD's opinion (emphasis added):

. . . Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based pro-choice group that has been tracking state abortion laws since the early 1970s, said, the proposed law was the first of its kind.

"We have not seen anything like this before," Nash said. "It's really chilling."

Jensen insisted the bill "has nothing to do with abortion" and would merely bar prosecutors from pressing charges against a family member who kills an assailant attacking a pregnant relative.

"Let's say an ex-boyfriend finds out his ex-girlfriend is pregnant with his baby and decides to beat on her abdomen to kill the unborn child," Jensen said. "This is an illegal act and the purpose of this bill is to bring continuity to South Dakota code as it relates to the unborn child."

But Alisha Sedor, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, a group that supports a woman's right to abortion, said she was worried the legislation could trigger attacks on abortion providers if it was not amended.

"I don't believe the intent is malicious," Sedor said. "But the potential legal implications of the bill are what make it dangerous. If it passes without an amendment exempting attacks on providers, it could incite violence from individuals who believe their actions will be found justifiable in court."

South Dakota has been at the center of some of the most bitter recent fights between supporters and opponents of abortion, which was legalized in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

In both 2006 and 2008, state legislators passed laws banning most abortions unless they were necessary to save a woman's life. In both cases, the laws were subsequently overturned by the state's voters at the polls.

So Ms. Sedor is (at least in that one quote) saying (like I have) the intent may not be malicious, but the law itself is.

I've already explained how the law couldn't possibly be merely about making fetal homicide laws consistent and that the intent didn't matter because it is the LETTER OF THE LAW that is inane and will actually have an effect.

Your only reply was to call those arguments (along with a quote from your own pro-life blog source about how these pro-life efforts are "ridiculous") ad hominems.

If you want to say that the law itself is flawed, go ahead. The INTENT, however, is not malicious, and that's what y'all were attacking. I called it an ad hominem when you attacked the poster and when someone tried to point out inconsistencies that I don't even have.

[Kazomal]

Seems to me the essential question is, giving them the benefit of the doubt in regards to intent, is this legislation necessary? Does it close an actual hole?

I'm looking for instances of people being jailed when a self-defense plea failed in instances where they were defending their unborn fetuses, and thus far I found one, but it was overturned on appeal.

Does someone better versed in legal history know the state of such cases in the US, or if there is a normal "state" of such cases?

'Cause if attacking a fetus is indeed already covered under justified homicide laws, then this law seems superfluous at best, or a political attack on abortion at worst (thought that's still hard for me to swallow the assertion that the point of this law is to make it legal to kill abortion doctors, because it involves a judge actually finding someone not-guilty of cold-blooded murder. Not that I don't think that there are judges who would like to do so, I just don't think it can realistically happen without the SD judicial system being eviscerated.)

However, if people are indeed going to jail for killing in the defense of their fetuses, then the situation is different, and such a loophole may indeed need to be closed.

[Farnhamia]

For those disputing that this could have good intentions, consider the case of Jaclyn Kurr, who was convicted of manslaughter for defending her unborn quadruplets.

Let's check what the actual source the pro-life blog you posted linked to says about the law and NARAL SD's opinion (emphasis added):

. . . Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based pro-choice group that has been tracking state abortion laws since the early 1970s, said, the proposed law was the first of its kind.

"We have not seen anything like this before," Nash said. "It's really chilling."

Jensen insisted the bill "has nothing to do with abortion" and would merely bar prosecutors from pressing charges against a family member who kills an assailant attacking a pregnant relative.

"Let's say an ex-boyfriend finds out his ex-girlfriend is pregnant with his baby and decides to beat on her abdomen to kill the unborn child," Jensen said. "This is an illegal act and the purpose of this bill is to bring continuity to South Dakota code as it relates to the unborn child."

But Alisha Sedor, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, a group that supports a woman's right to abortion, said she was worried the legislation could trigger attacks on abortion providers if it was not amended.

"I don't believe the intent is malicious," Sedor said. "But the potential legal implications of the bill are what make it dangerous. If it passes without an amendment exempting attacks on providers, it could incite violence from individuals who believe their actions will be found justifiable in court."

South Dakota has been at the center of some of the most bitter recent fights between supporters and opponents of abortion, which was legalized in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

In both 2006 and 2008, state legislators passed laws banning most abortions unless they were necessary to save a woman's life. In both cases, the laws were subsequently overturned by the state's voters at the polls.

So Ms. Sedor is (at least in that one quote) saying (like I have) the intent may not be malicious, but the law itself is.

I've already explained how the law couldn't possibly be merely about making fetal homicide laws consistent and that the intent didn't matter because it is the LETTER OF THE LAW that is inane and will actually have an effect.

Your only reply was to call those arguments (along with a quote from your own pro-life blog source about how these pro-life efforts are "ridiculous") ad hominems.

If you want to say that the law itself is flawed, go ahead. The INTENT, however, is not malicious, and that's what y'all were attacking. I called it an ad hominem when you attacked the poster and when someone tried to point out inconsistencies that I don't even have.

Ms. Kurr was convicted in Michigan. Nothing to do with South Dakota.

[Nulono]

Seems to me the essential question is, giving them the benefit of the doubt in regards to intent, is this legislation necessary? Does it close an actual hole?

I'm looking for instances of people being jailed when a self-defense plea failed in instances where they were defending their unborn fetuses, and thus far I found one, but it was overturned on appeal.

Does someone better versed in legal history know the state of such cases in the US, or if there is a normal "state" of such cases?

'Cause if attacking a fetus is indeed already covered under justified homicide laws, then this law seems superfluous at best, or a political attack on abortion at worst (thought that's still hard for me to swallow the assertion that the point of this law is to make it legal to kill abortion doctors, because it involves a judge actually finding someone not-guilty of cold-blooded murder. Not that I don't think that there are judges who would like to do so, I just don't think it can realistically happen without the SD judicial system being eviscerated.)

However, if people are indeed going to jail for killing in the defense of their fetuses, then the situation is different, and such a loophole may indeed need to be closed.

That's really where the focus needs to be. Using this as a way of claiming that pro-lifers support murder is just not helpful.

[Geniasis]

Well, that's your prerogative. But, and this may shock you, not everyone agrees with you. Some people see embryos as people. If they didn't, get this, we wouldn't be debating this in the first place.

People are also free to pretend that clouds are made of cotton candy. This does not mean that I have any obligation to pretend they're not wrong.

[Nulono]

Well, that's your prerogative. But, and this may shock you, not everyone agrees with you. Some people see embryos as people. If they didn't, get this, we wouldn't be debating this in the first place.

People are also free to pretend that clouds are made of cotton candy. This does not mean that I have any obligation to pretend they're not wrong.

That's fine, but don't say "You don't actually believe that." and act like that's an argument.

[Wiztopia]

From the Justin Bieber thread.

I disagree with his "everything happens for a reason" BS, but yes I agree that abortion is not okay in the case of rape.

[Nulono]

From the Justin Bieber thread.

I disagree with his "everything happens for a reason" BS, but yes I agree that abortion is not okay in the case of rape.

Your point?

[Geniasis]

That's fine, but don't say "You don't actually believe that." and act like that's an argument.

Then let me ask you this, do you believe then that abortion is murder?

[Nulono]

That's fine, but don't say "You don't actually believe that." and act like that's an argument.

Then let me ask you this, do you believe then that abortion is murder?

No.

[Geniasis]

No.

Damn. I was expecting you to give the other answer. I had a wall-of-text ready to go and everything.

So what is it then? According to you, it's killing a person.

[Wiztopia]

From the Justin Bieber thread.

Your point?

That you seem to think women should have to go through 9 months of hell because they were raped.

[The Cat-Tribe]

For those disputing that this could have good intentions, consider the case of Jaclyn Kurr, who was convicted of manslaughter for defending her unborn quadruplets.

Let's check what the actual source the pro-life blog you posted linked to says about the law and NARAL SD's opinion (emphasis added):

. . . Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based pro-choice group that has been tracking state abortion laws since the early 1970s, said, the proposed law was the first of its kind.

"We have not seen anything like this before," Nash said. "It's really chilling."

Jensen insisted the bill "has nothing to do with abortion" and would merely bar prosecutors from pressing charges against a family member who kills an assailant attacking a pregnant relative.

"Let's say an ex-boyfriend finds out his ex-girlfriend is pregnant with his baby and decides to beat on her abdomen to kill the unborn child," Jensen said. "This is an illegal act and the purpose of this bill is to bring continuity to South Dakota code as it relates to the unborn child."

But Alisha Sedor, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, a group that supports a woman's right to abortion, said she was worried the legislation could trigger attacks on abortion providers if it was not amended.

"I don't believe the intent is malicious," Sedor said. "But the potential legal implications of the bill are what make it dangerous. If it passes without an amendment exempting attacks on providers, it could incite violence from individuals who believe their actions will be found justifiable in court."

South Dakota has been at the center of some of the most bitter recent fights between supporters and opponents of abortion, which was legalized in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

In both 2006 and 2008, state legislators passed laws banning most abortions unless they were necessary to save a woman's life. In both cases, the laws were subsequently overturned by the state's voters at the polls.

So Ms. Sedor is (at least in that one quote) saying (like I have) the intent may not be malicious, but the law itself is.

I've already explained how the law couldn't possibly be merely about making fetal homicide laws consistent and that the intent didn't matter because it is the LETTER OF THE LAW that is inane and will actually have an effect.

Your only reply was to call those arguments (along with a quote from your own pro-life blog source about how these pro-life efforts are "ridiculous") ad hominems.

If you want to say that the law itself is flawed, go ahead. The INTENT, however, is not malicious, and that's what y'all were attacking. I called it an ad hominem when you attacked the poster and when someone tried to point out inconsistencies that I don't even have.

1. I have repeatedly attacked the language of the law itself -- as have other posters. So your "y'all" is a strawman.

2. Given that the explantation given for the law is facetious on its face AND the law clearly does something malicious as written, it is not unreasonable to question either the intent or the intellegence of its drafters and supporters.

For example, why do you support it, if (a) you know it does not do what it is supposedly intended to do and (b) you know its clear meaning includes cases you seem to agree would be unconscionable to legalize?

3. I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means. Pointing out errors in a poster's statements is not an ad hominem. Rebutting falsehoods is not an ad hominem. Disagreeing with you is not an ad hominem.

[Cobhanglica]

This is a stupid idea. We have so many other ways to fight abortion; there's no need to stoop to that sort of thing.

[Wamitoria]

This is a stupid idea. We have so many other ways to fight abortion; there's no need to stoop to that sort of thing.

/thread

When Cobby think's that it's too far, it's too far.

[Wiztopia]

This is a stupid idea. We have so many other ways to fight abortion; there's no need to stoop to that sort of thing.

The best way to fight abortion is by not fighting it at all. Its nobodies business but the person getting the abortion.

[Nulono]

No.

Damn. I was expecting you to give the other answer. I had a wall-of-text ready to go and everything.

So what is it then? According to you, it's killing a person.

It's homicide. Murder, by definition, is illegal.

Your point?

That you seem to think women should have to go through 9 months of hell because they were raped.

You'd rather an innocent child die for the crime of her father?

[Geniasis]

Damn. I was expecting you to give the other answer. I had a wall-of-text ready to go and everything.

So what is it then? According to you, it's killing a person.

It's homicide. Murder, by definition, is illegal.

Odd then that you've not taken to the streets to fight tooth and nail against all the rampant killing. If you truly believed in what you say, one would imagine that you would find yourself compelled to do more than bitch about it on NationStates.

[Unchecked Expansion]

You'd rather an innocent child die for the crime of her father?

I'd rather an innocent child never got involved. Which abortion nicely solves

[The Cat-Tribe]

Seems to me the essential question is, giving them the benefit of the doubt in regards to intent, is this legislation necessary? Does it close an actual hole?

I'm looking for instances of people being jailed when a self-defense plea failed in instances where they were defending their unborn fetuses, and thus far I found one, but it was overturned on appeal.

Does someone better versed in legal history know the state of such cases in the US, or if there is a normal "state" of such cases?

'Cause if attacking a fetus is indeed already covered under justified homicide laws, then this law seems superfluous at best, or a political attack on abortion at worst (thought that's still hard for me to swallow the assertion that the point of this law is to make it legal to kill abortion doctors, because it involves a judge actually finding someone not-guilty of cold-blooded murder. Not that I don't think that there are judges who would like to do so, I just don't think it can realistically happen without the SD judicial system being eviscerated.)

However, if people are indeed going to jail for killing in the defense of their fetuses, then the situation is different, and such a loophole may indeed need to be closed.

That's really where the focus needs to be. Using this as a way of claiming that pro-lifers support murder is just not helpful.

For those disputing that this could have good intentions, consider the case of Jaclyn Kurr, who was convicted of manslaughter for defending her unborn quadruplets.

*snip*

Others can correct me if they find other cases, but there have been only a handful of cases over the last several decades in which a "defense of the unborn" defense has been attempted. In Ogas v. State, 655 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex. App. 1983), a pregnant woman killed her husband after he allegedly threatened her. She was not allowed to assert the "defense of others" defense regarding her unborn because Texas statutes specifically defined the others as a "human being who has been born and is alive." In People v. Gaines, 292 N.E.2d 500, 502 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973), a pregnant woman unsucessfully raised the defense of the unborn theory when she was tried for killing her husband by shooting him in the back. Although the Illinois Court of Appeals held the defendant's theory failed as a matter of law, it also noted that the facts of the case showed no threat to the woman or her unborn. With the exception of the Kurr case, all other cases have involved anti-abortion activists tried for criminal conduct who have unsuccessfully raised the defense of others theory. For example, in Louisiana v Aguillard, 567 So 2d 674, 675 (La App, 1990), the defendants were prosecuted for criminal trespass, obstructing public passage, and resisting an officer after they protested abortions at an abortion clinic. The Louisiana Court of Appeals held that they were not entitled to assert a defense of others theory because a woman’s right to obtain an abortion is constitutionally protected. Id. at 676-677. Likewise, in Allison v City of Birmingham, 580 So 2d 1377, 1383 (Ala App, 1991), the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defendant, who had been convicted of criminal trespass for protesting at an abortion clinic, could not raise a defense of others theory because “‘unlawful physical force’ must be used by the other person in order to support a defense-of-third-persons” claim and because abortion is lawful.

This brings us to decade-old case that allegedly "prompted" these laws and Nulono makes reference to: Michigan v. Jaclyn Louise Kurr, 253 Mich. App. 317, 654 N.W.2d 651, 2002 Mich. App. 1380 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (6p pdf). Unfortunately, this "poster child" case is anything but.

Ms. Kurr (who had 3 previous violent convictions) killed her boyfriend with a knife after he (according to her) punched her in the stomach twice. She alleges she was carrying quadruplets at the time - October 9, 1999. Ms. Kurr did present evidence of her boyfriend's abusive nature. The evidence concerning her pregnancy was mixed. A nurse employee at the county jail testified Ms. Kurr had a positive pregancy test on October 25, 1999. Ms. Kurr and a cellmate testifed about a tissue-like discharge that appeared on Ms. Kurr's sanitary napkin during the first week of November. Ms. Kerr tested negative on a pregnancy test on November 9, 1999. It was Ms. Kurr's contention that she had miscarried. The age of the unborn at the time of the boyfriend's stabbing was unclear, but it was undisputed it was less than sixteen or seventeen weeks. The trial court refused to instruct the jury that Ms. Kurr could have acted legally in defense of others, i.e. her unborn. The jury found Ms. Kurr guilty of voluntary manslaughter. As a fourth habitual offender, Ms. Kurr was sentenced to five to 20 years.

BUT the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed Ms. Kurr's conviction and remanded the case, holding that an individual may defend a non-viable fetus from an assault against the mother and may even use deadly force if she honestly and reasonably believes the fetus to be in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm. The Court expressly noted, however that its holding would not apply to lawful abortions.

Ms. Kurr was then retried and allowed to present the defense of the unborn defense. She was convicted by the jury of involuntary manslaughter and again sentenced to 5 years to 20 years (as a habitual offender. She was released in 2003 (due to time served). Since then she has been convicted for 3 other felonies.

So:
1. No law like the one proposed in South Dakota was necessary in the Kurr case. To the contrary, the Court in Michigan based its decision on the fetal homicide laws. South Dakota has those.

2. Ms. Kurr is not a good poster child for these laws, as she was convicted of manslaughter despite being allowed to assert one of these defense.

3. Going back 40 years there has not been a "problem" of women convicted of homicides when defending their unborn. This is a "solution" for a non-problem.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Damn. I was expecting you to give the other answer. I had a wall-of-text ready to go and everything.

So what is it then? According to you, it's killing a person.

It's homicide. Murder, by definition, is illegal.

That you seem to think women should have to go through 9 months of hell because they were raped.

You'd rather an innocent child die for the crime of her father?

Suffering in such a case is inevitable to some degree. But an early abortion terminates the "innocent child" before it has any consciousness, feels pain, ect. Thus, it does not suffer. The alternative is that the mother suffers not only the nine months of agony, but probably a life-time of trauma AND the "innocent child" suffer trauma and myriad other possible harms as well.

Sacrificing a zygote or embryo to prevent permanent severe harm to a adult (or teen) female seems a no-brainer (especially when one is saving the "child" from trauma as well, while inflicting no pain or trauma in doing so.)

BUT, AGAIN, YOU ARE FAR FROM THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. Even if you cross over two bridges of vague connections, you still can't see the thread topic from your post. Please return to the topic.

[Wiztopia]

Damn. I was expecting you to give the other answer. I had a wall-of-text ready to go and everything.

So what is it then? According to you, it's killing a person.

It's homicide. Murder, by definition, is illegal.

That you seem to think women should have to go through 9 months of hell because they were raped.

You'd rather an innocent child die for the crime of her father?

It is never murder. Please put your bible away. Also who says the fetus would be female?

It's homicide. Murder, by definition, is illegal.

Odd then that you've not taken to the streets to fight tooth and nail against all the rampant killing. If you truly believed in what you say, one would imagine that you would find yourself compelled to do more than bitch about it on NationStates.

Shit! You just created another Scott Roeder.

[Nulono]

It's homicide. Murder, by definition, is illegal.

You'd rather an innocent child die for the crime of her father?

Suffering in such a case is inevitable to some degree. But an early abortion terminates the "innocent child" before it has any consciousness, feels pain, ect. Thus, it does not suffer. The alternative is that the mother suffers not only the nine months of agony, but probably a life-time of trauma AND the "innocent child" suffer trauma and myriad other possible harms as well.

Sacrificing a zygote or embryo to prevent permanent severe harm to a adult (or teen) female seems a no-brainer (especially when one is saving the "child" from trauma as well, while inflicting no pain or trauma in doing so.)

BUT, AGAIN, YOU ARE FAR FROM THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. Even if you cross over two bridges of vague connections, you still can't see the thread topic from your post. Please return to the topic.

So murder is okay as long as it's painless?

You'd rather an innocent child die for the crime of her father?

I'd rather an innocent child never got involved. Which abortion nicely solves

I think you have abortion confused with contraception.

It's homicide. Murder, by definition, is illegal.

Odd then that you've not taken to the streets to fight tooth and nail against all the rampant killing. If you truly believed in what you say, one would imagine that you would find yourself compelled to do more than bitch about it on NationStates.

I'm not that kind of person. I'm not a front-lines kind of guy.

Also, there are many genocides taking place right now that I'm not doing anything about.

3. Going back 40 years there has not been a "problem" of women convicted of homicides when defending their unborn. This is a "solution" for a non-problem.

So you'd rather wait until AFTER a woman is unjustly imprisoned, THEN pass this law, and have it not apply to her under the ex post facto clause?

It's homicide. Murder, by definition, is illegal.


You'd rather an innocent child die for the crime of her father?

It is never murder.

When did I say it was murder?

Please put your bible away.

Dude, I'm an atheist.

Also who says the fetus would be female?

No one. English, imperfect language as it is, lacks a neuter personal pronoun for the third person singular.

Odd then that you've not taken to the streets to fight tooth and nail against all the rampant killing. If you truly believed in what you say, one would imagine that you would find yourself compelled to do more than bitch about it on NationStates.

Shit! You just created another Scott Roeder.

Roeder was only tangentially related to the pro-life movement (through a post on an open forum), and every pro-life organization I know of decried his actions. Though I'm not likely to do much outdoor activism; I'm more of a behind-the-scenes guy.

[Wiztopia]

When did I say it was murder?

Dude, I'm an atheist.

Also who says the fetus would be female?
No one. English, imperfect language as it is, lacks a neuter personal pronoun for the third person singular.

Roeder was only tangentially related to the pro-life movement (through a post on an open forum), and every pro-life organization I know of decried his actions. Though I'm not likely to do much outdoor activism; I'm more of a behind-the-scenes guy.

It's homicide. Murder, by definition, is illegal.

Somebody trying to deny they said something. Troll.

You should also start supporting women's rights.

Seriously? The word is "it".

Many pro-lifers also support such actions.