Sharia by any other name...

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

We're much more sensitive to the digressions of others than we are to our own. So it's easy to throw around jihad and sharia law when discussing them, but I guess we're slowly getting sharia of our own?


South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers

A bill under consideration in the Mount Rushmore State would make preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide" in many cases.

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.

More at the hyperlink above.


If you're of the opinion that abortion is the outright murder of another human being, then you can get a perspective regarding the intent of those who want to deter the practice outright. I have sympathy for this point of view. However, this law, if it passes, is vile and likely no better than some of the draconian elements of Sharia law that has generated thread upon thread of hysteria and consternation.

The added irony here is that South Dakota is a state that is explicitly trying to ban Sharia.

[HeartsOfFire]

Or stupid people in positions of power, for that matter.

*cough*city council*cough*

[jar_e]

So why wouldn't they just make abortion illegal first?

[calgaryrocks]

In general I can agree with the stance of not wanting abortions as they are killing a fetus, but these things are never black and white. there may be situations where it is acceptable. bottom line though is that killing someone for it is insane. What do they mean by killing them? so killing a fetus is worse then any other kind of murder? sure treat it like murder, put the person in jail/rehabilitation if required (or just take away thier licensce. there are many better ways to deal with it then killing someone.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

there are many better ways to deal with it then killing someone.

Well, to remove the sting of that bit of truth, they've explicitly allowed it to be categorized under justifiable homicide rather than this brutish killing that you're talking about.

Of course, in this specific context, justifiable homicide is just a Western euphemism for honour killing.

[peter12]

Except we have courts that strike legislation like this down as unconstitutional.

[HeartsOfFire]

We do IN CANADA, yes. In the States, in order for something to be ruled unconstitutional, it must first be made law, and then challenged.

The U.S. Justice system does not deal in hypotheticals, unlike ours.

And should this travesty of a bill EVER be made into law, you can bet your entire personal assets that it will be ruled unconstitutional.

[SeeBass]

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

George Carlin asked a good one: "...they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?"

[Weiser Wonder]

The fact that there are people who think this is a good idea is disgusting. It's evil.

[Thor]

Missing link to the original story? I just see the sharia law link.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

We do IN CANADA, yes. In the States, in order for something to be ruled unconstitutional, it must first be made law, and then challenged.

The U.S. Justice system does not deal in hypotheticals, unlike ours.

And should this travesty of a bill EVER be made into law, you can bet your entire personal assets that it will be ruled unconstitutional.

That's largely correct, but it's not as if someone would have to be killed for a constitutional challenege to be brought. If it were to ever be passed the challenge would be filed that very instant, and any actual enactment would be stayed pending judicial review.

This is simply redneck politicians playing to redneck voters.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

We do IN CANADA, yes. In the States, in order for something to be ruled unconstitutional, it must first be made law, and then challenged.

The U.S. Justice system does not deal in hypotheticals, unlike ours.

And should this travesty of a bill EVER be made into law, you can bet your entire personal assets that it will be ruled unconstitutional.

It's the same here, actually, more or less. We have just had a series of governments sending references to the Supreme Court, which are not law, but have the convention of binding law.

[OBCT]

This is shocking to me. I had to double-check that it wasn't an Onion article, or something.

I'm far from a "fan" of abortion, but I just can't wrap my head around the logic behind the "justifiable homicide" part. Why is killing a fetus wrong, but killing a guy who threatens to kill a fetus right - especially if the party(s) directly involved are fully consenting?

This issue is far too complicated to "solve" with such a black & white piece of legislation.

[CaptainCrunch]

I swear to god if I was heaviliy religious I would start thinking that we're in the end of days, and the stupid will inherite the earth.

[GGG]

If you believe that a fetus should be given the same rights as a human being then this law makes sense. If someone is killing your grandkid are you allowed to stop him? If you don't make the distinction between fetus and human then the law makes sense.

However really this is a disturbing end around abortion laws. If they want to challenge Row V. Wade they should just challenge it or severely restrict access to abortion. The concept of making allowing a lethal response to a legal act makes no sense.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm not up on my abortion law, but I thought Roe vs Wade was federal and defined how states must handle abortion.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not up on my abortion law, but I thought Roe vs Wade was federal and defined how states must handle abortion.

States can restrict the practice to various degrees depending on trimester, etc... However, I believe the federal law requires there to be at least a specific period wherein abortion is legal.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

States can restrict the practice to various degrees depending on trimester, etc... However, I believe the federal law requires there to be at least a specific period wherein abortion is legal.

The general concept is that states can't impose restrictions that effectively deny the right to an abortion. There are various nuanced areas within that, ranging from things about timing to technique. It's obviously a very contentious area, so there's always a battle over a certain law that restricts x and another that permits y, etc.

[Rubicant]

As someone who is married to a doctor that provides this service, I can safely say I don't plan on moving to South Dakota anytime soon.

Like someone above said, this is a bunch of redneck politicians appeasing the stupid part of the right.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

As someone who is married to a doctor that provides this service, I can safely say I don't plan on moving to South Dakota anytime soon.

Like someone above said, this is a bunch of redneck politicians appeasing the stupid part of the right.

As an outsider, redneck politicians of this sort seem to be the trend in the United States of America these days. And a disturbing trend it is.