All Our Lives

South Dakota's House Bill 1171 has been shelved due to concerns that, as worded, it could provide a defense for killers such as Scott Roeder.

The phrasing caused concern and disbelief on both sides of the abortion debate, with activists in the abortion rights and anti-abortion movements calling the language poorly conceived at best, and perhaps an incitement to violence. The bill was cheered, though, by those anti-abortion activists who argue that the use of violence is justified to stop doctors from carrying out abortions.

It's refreshing to see a reporter make the distinction between those abortion opponents who favor violence and the rest of the movement. I think it's important to remind everyone, especially the "justifiable homicide" crowd, that their advocacy of murder is unacceptable to the rest of us.

I believe that the bill's sponsor, Phil Jensen, absolutely did not intend it as license to kill abortion providers. Remember, as he introduced it, the bill specified that a woman could legally use lethal force "to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child."

When the bill was amended, the language about "unlawful force" was removed. I'd love to know who removed the "unlawful force" provision and why. Unfortunately, the South Dakota Legislature web site doesn't give the name of the person who amended it (or any other bill, for that matter), and their audio of the session doesn't seem to work. I'll keep looking.

I posted on the All Our Lives Facebook wall earlier today about a Mother Jones article entitled, "South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers."  They keep updating and removing information from that article, which made it very confusing to try to figure out what was going on, so I went directly to the South Dakota Legislature's web site for more information. As introduced, the bill would have provided a pregnant woman an affirmative defense against homicide or assault charges if she used force to protect her unborn child against an unlawful assault. So far, so good.

The bill as amended and passed out of committee on February 9 contains very different language:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
    22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
    Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
    22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

This link should clarify the order of events.

I apologize for the confusion in the Facebook post.

Now that we know what's in the bill, let's talk about it. I don't see anything in Section 2 of this bill or in Chapter 22-16 of the South Dakota code that would limit this definition of "justifiable homicide" to instances when the unborn child is threatened by an unlawful assault. In other words, I am not a lawyer, but I don't see how this wouldn't give Scott Roeder a defense if George Tiller had: a) been in South Dakota and b) scheduled to perform an abortion on Roeder's wife (or mother, daughter, mistress, or servant (!)). If that's the case, it's a huge problem, for reasons I've discussed before. Maybe the "lawful defense" clause makes the difference; lawyers, please feel free to weigh in.