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.
I will stop here for a second and point out the words "party line vote" and hope you might keep them in mind the next time you think labels on the ballot don't matter.
Now, where was I?
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.
"This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."
Of course not. Absolutely nothing to do with abortion at all.
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.
I bet the reason so many virulently anti-abortion groups came out in favor of this bill is because it has nothing to do with abortion. I hate it when they don't even respect you enough to put the effort into coming up with bullshit that is even the slightest bit plausible.
"Drugmonkey I'm ahead of you on this one." Some of you might be saying. "I know my local TV news cannot be counted on for anything other than 20 minutes of weather and stories about cats who play the piano. So I count on print media to stay informed, and I know that South Dakota bill has been shelved. That was really a close call."
And you would be right. Unfortunately you're about to learn why you can never, ever, let up in the fight against these people:
Just when abortion rights supporters thought they had beaten a controversial bill they believe would legalize the killing of abortion providers, it has cropped up again—this time in a more expansive form that has drawn the concern of law enforcement officials.
Last week, South Dakota's legislature shelved a bill, introduced by Republican state Rep. Phil Jensen, which would have allowed the use of the "justifiable homicide" defense for killings intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Now a nearly identical bill is being considered in neighboring Nebraska, where on Wednesday the state legislature held a hearing on the measure.
Beat them down once and they come back in a more expansive form.
The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape.
Of course this has nothing to do with abortion at all.
Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit "justifiable homicide" in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.
Anyone. Take a look at the next 10 people to wander up to your pharmacy counter and imagine any of them with a license to kill.
"Wow that really sucks for those doctors." some of you are saying. "I'd really hate to be in their shoes." Which will make me a little sad. Because I don't want to do this, but I'm gonna have to give you a reality check. I'll try to do it gently. I'll need you to fire up your thought process for this.
Ready?
Now, we're already in a world where pharmacy's leading trade magazine is printing the propaganda of the right, namely that the scientific consensus on when pregnancy begins is not when an embryo implants into the uterus, when in fact that is the overwhelming scientific consensus. So, close your eyes and imagine a world 10....15....20 years from now, when a bill like LB 232 has been passed somewhere and a razor sharp lawyer has just won an acquittal of someone who slaughtered an abortion provider "to save the fetus"
Now imagine those 10 people at your pharmacy counter again. Convinced that pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization and not at the moment of implantation. And asking if you sell the Plan B.
And with a license to kill. You.
Imagine that for awhile, and I have a feeling your motivation to fight these fuckers may just get a little boost.
At least I hope so. For your sake as well as mine.
9 comments:
I attempted to leave a comment on the DT site, but their CAPTCHA is broken. I guess they're afraid of comments.
So I'll leave here what I want to say there.
Your religious belief that life begins at fertilization is not congruous with scientific fact.
That Drug Topics published this religion-based, utterly non-evidence-based editorial is a disgrace to the profession.
Conni, PharmD; North Carolina
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but it may be possible that your country is kind of messed up.
One thing though, wouldn't they have to prove that the pharmacist who dispensed Plan B dispensed the exact pills that prevented a pregnancy? Wouldn't they need the actual embryo as proof that the Plan B caused it not to attach? I would hope so.
In that case, it would be nearly impossible to actually acquit someone of killing a pharmacist under this law. But then again, we wouldn't find out for sure until there was at least one dead pharmacist. I don't want to be that pharmacist.
Also: I think you missed an opportunity to throw in the ol' line of how ironic it is that these pro-lifers seem to be so pro-murder. AND the SD bill said "partner." Could "partner" mean that a lesbian couple could start offing people trying to harm their unborn fetus, just like a straight couple? Gay rights! It's a start, right? Ha. Sometimes you gotta look on the bright side, DM. :)
I left a comment on drug topics. Used my mobile phone though, not sure if it'll be displayed.
I tried leaving a comment on the Drug Topics article as well but I'm not sure if it went through. Here is what I wrote to Miss "Fertilization=pregnancy":
I hope you are kidding. I really do. Because you truly are misinformed. Plan B isn't effective if you are already pregnant. In fact no competent pharmacist will dispense Plan B when the patient is already pregnant, hence the 72 hour window. Go on facts and comparisons and look up the definition. In regards to the embryo already being implanted, if the embryo isn't implanted, the endometrium it's shed during menstruation. This occurs naturally anyway during a normal menstrual cycle with no fertilization. So you could argue that menses is a form of
abortion because that endrometrium being shed could have been a fetus had it been fertilized which is absurd
Also, I find it rather insulting that you compare dispensing Plan B to stealing an iPod. Theft is illegal. Dispensing Plan B is not.
I want to know when they are going to pass a bill for justifiable homicide against legislators who pass bills that get people killed. They have no responsibility, they have no accountability. I am pissed.
Rats! I spent about 20 minutes ranting on this subject and went back to your post to check something, and my unfinished comment disappeared. I'm too tired to try to reconstruct it, so I'll just say that I totally agree with you, DM and I really, really like Bluedahlia's idea!
(Yay! I found it!)
I have great difficulty trying to understand what motivates these shit-for-brains people who apparently believe that the only life that is sacred is a teensy little embryo (or even a potential embryo). Go ahead, KILL the doctor who performs the operation requested by the mother. KILL the mother! SAVE the fertilized ovum! Never mind the fact that an unwanted baby will likely have a terrible life. All you morons carrying your protest signs in front of the increasingly rare abortion clinics should step up and promise to adopt and care for the unwanted embryo if you can talk the unhappy mother to carry the poor little thing to term. Yeah, right! Most of you "care" about the embryo in theory only. Why don't you use your energy constructively, and help needy, already-born kids who are suffering from poverty and neglect? Why don't you promote sex education and contraception? Could it be that at least some of you just believe that sex is evil and that pregnancy is a woman's punishment for having it? Hmmmm?
I'm so angry with those ignorant, assholey legislators who are sponsoring this nonsense, that I would like to picket their offices.
I'm starting to wonder if all of this crazy legislation is some subconscious desire to preserve the white race in America. diga me for a sec - studies say that white people will be outnumbered by non-whites in the US within, like, 50? 75? years tops, right? so by not only restrictng/preventing abortions EVEN IN THE CASE OF RAPE, but also endorsing the killing of those who would even attempt to get/give an abortion they are seeking to force the birth of white babies. I mean, these laws aren't happening in Arizona or Florida, where there are just as many bigots, but in South Dakota and Nebraska, states that are overwhelmingly white.
or I'm just crazy.
Post a Comment