Bow Before State Representative Phil Jensen and His Grotesque Lies and Disturbed Fantasies!
A question for the voters of South Dakota: Did you change your state's motto to "Legalizing Domestic Terrorism and Proud of It" while the rest of the country wasn't looking?
And now bask in the glory that is State Representative Phil Jensen and his grotesque lies and disturbed fantasies (really bad form emphasis mine):
I just had a spirited conversation with the bill's chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.
"It would if abortion was illegal," he told me. "This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion."
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
Not only doesn't [t]his code only deal with illegal acts, it specifically enumerates attempts to commit illegal acts (any felony) and attempts likely to result in the death of the [fetus] as distinct categories and makes homicide justifiable in both instances.
Furthermore, the vague "resisting" and "any attempt" in while resisting any attempt...likely to result in the death of the [fetus] are in there for a reason. It doesn't matter that abortion is legal and that the patient consented to the procedure. If the patient involuntarily kicks you during the procedure while sedated, her master, her mistress, and her servant whom she brought along for support, can all three shoot you in the head right there in the operating room in an act of South Dakota justifiable homicide.
Who's to say a patient's involuntary movement isn't "resisting" and a legal procedure isn't "any attempt"? Oh, wait, my mistake! The person about to blow the Ob/Gyn to smithereens, that's who, according to HB 1171.
As long as the person has a reasonable belief that there's a whiff of intent in the air (reasonable ground to apprehend a design) to commit an illegal act OR to do some great personal injury, the person can assassinate the Ob/Gyn in that most righteous of manners, the one that populates Representative Phil Jensen's disturbed fantasies, causes his nether regions to tingle, and makes a rapist assassinating his victim if she becomes pregnant and attempts to terminate the pregnancy justifiable.
As an aside, what is it with South Dakota legislators and disturbed fantasies? Here's Sen. William Napoli in 2006 describing the circumstances he would deem appropriate to qualify a rape for an exemption from the state's abortion ban:
BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
Jensen insisted that the bill's primary goal is to bring "consistency" to South Dakota criminal code, which already allows people who commit crimes that result in the death of fetuses to be charged with manslaughter. The new measure expands the state's definition of "justifiable homicide" by adding a clause applying it to someone who is "resisting any attempt" to murder of an unborn child or to harm an unborn child in a way likely to result in its death.
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."
South Dakota already has justifiable homicide laws for self defense:
22-16-34. Justifiable homicide--Resisting attempted murder--Resisting felony on person or in dwelling house. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.Granted, under the current laws, the pregnant woman in Rep. Phil Jensen's example would be justified in killing her ex-boyfriend just because he was beating on *her* and *her* abdomen (Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt ... to commit any felony upon him or her....)
22-16-35. Justifiable homicide--Defense of person--Defense of other persons in household. 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 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.
Unfortunately, in Rep. Phil Jensen's fetid mind an attempt to commit a felony on just the uterine container doesn't pass muster. For the killing of the ex-boyfriend to count as justifiable homicide, the uterine container must be resisting an effort to murder her unborn child.
One last thing, a request I have for you. According to a news report, Concerned Women for America testified in favor of HB 1171:
The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) is the go-to group for MSM articles on reproductive health and policy topics dealing with contraception and abortion. Every quote from a legitimate medical source is accompanied by a quote from one of CWA's representatives in a transparent attempt at a "she-said, she-said" game.
I say fine, let's play the MSM's game. So here's my request to you. Every time you see an article quoting CWA contact the reporter and ask him/her why a group that openly supports domestic terrorism directed at pregnant women and Ob/Gyns was included in the article. Then blog about the reporter's justification. At the very least it should be instructive.
So there you have it. I wish I could come up with an insightful summary but, really, what more is there to say? We have reached a stage where it's acceptable to propose a bill that would make it legal to assassinate pregnant women who terminate a pregnancy and the Ob/Gyns, nurses, etc. who care for them.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for the voters of South Dakota and their elected representatives, the domestic terrorists' BFFs 4evah!
Update: The language of the bill has been changed.
ETA: I added the bit about MSM and some snark.