Lawmaker Behind South Dakota's 'Justifiable Homicide' Bill Defends Measure [UPDATE]

UPDATE, 2/16: Greg Sargent just alerted me to the new bend in the road of this bill -- Phil Jensen is "considering the following change to the language" of the bill:

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 that is unlawful and 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.

The bolded part would be the new part, and the upshot, per Sargent is this "would make it clear that 'justifiable homicide' can only apply in response to an unlawful act, which would obviously not include abortion, which is legal."

____________

The internet is straight blowing up at the news on Tuesday that lawmakers in South Dakota are mulling a piece of legislation that would seem to make it legally permissible to kill abortion providers. Here's Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard:

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.

Says Vicki Saporta, the head of the National Abortion Federation, "The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers."

Phil Jensen did not return Sheppard's calls, but he did speak to The Plum Line's Greg Sargent this morning, and guess what? He feels his law is being badly misinterpreted! "This has nothing to do with abortion," he says.

Since the original outcry, a change has been made to the bill: it only allows the "justifiable homicide" defense in cases of self-defense. It's no longer applicable to fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, or husbands.

UPDATE: Sorry for the confusion, there was no change to the bill. The bill, in its current form, can be seen here.

So what does this law seek to do?

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."

Is there a localized outbreak of women having their abdomens beaten by people who want to avoid paying child support? Is it not already a crime in South Dakota to beat on your ex-girlfriend's abdomen? And is it not yet permissible in South Dakota to defend oneself, with deadly force if necessary, against the threat of immediate harm to your person? (Maybe South Dakota is simply lagging behind on legal protections for ex-girlfriends.)

Jensen was dismissive of the notion that this law could be seen as an invitation to kill abortion providers: "Never say never, but if some loony did what you're suggesting, then this law wouldn't apply to them. It wouldn't be justifiable homicide."

I guess I'm pretty hung up on that whole "never say never" part.

RELATED:
South Dakota legislator defends bill to make killing to defend fetuses a "justifiable homicide" [The Plum Line @ WaPo]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[thegreenhornet]

09:18 AM on 02/19/2011

It's interesting that under the language of this bill the republicans in congress would be criminally liable for defunding Palnned Parenthood t the extend it denies patients of prenatal care and counseling, thus endangering the lives of fetuses.

[ProgressivesLoveAmerica]

06:21 PM on 02/17/2011

With all the violence surrounding the issue of abortion these days, we really need to propose a federal law that would establish a safety zone of at LEAST One Thousand feet around which "protesters" would be colpetely banned. Anybody violating the law would be charged with felony sexual harassment & conspiracy to commit terror, they would have to register as a sex offender, and they would be placed on a terror watch list.

Let's face the facts here. These people who protest are creepy, a lot of what they're doing really constitutes sexual harassment & it does lead to terrorism as in the case of Scott Roeder and many others.

What South Dakota is doing is legitimizing violence against women and hatred for women's rights.

[RightnotLeft]

05:06 PM on 02/17/2011

WHY ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?
•On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

95% or more of abortions are performed on selfish irresponsible woman.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/index.htm

[Pembrokelib]

10:55 PM on 02/21/2011

Will the " priests for life " help the mothers financially after the unwanted
babies are born? I have no idea where you found the figures but they
Do not sound realistic or true. What about the health of the woman, what
about rape and incest, what about very young teenagers. Are you planning how to help them if they have a baby? You should be more concerned about priestly irresponsibility and child abuse.

[RightnotLeft]

11:15 PM on 02/21/2011

I found them on a CDC website............... research it yourself. I threw that website in there to show you the baby at the third trimester. Rape and incest make up about 2% of abortions. Do your own research.

[Vic22]

03:36 PM on 02/17/2011

Bieber was dismissive of the notion that this law could be seen as an invitation to kill abortion providers: "Never say never!"

[PookiePoo]

02:00 PM on 02/17/2011

"Justifiable homicide"...would that mean that a husband can murder his wife who had a miscarriage, because he can claim that she lost the fetus on purpose?

[2garen]

10:51 AM on 02/17/2011

This is amazing to think someone wants to play with the words to let someone harm someone else.
What in the world are we becoming as a society?
Heaven help us because our representatives sure are going to.

[Finnegans Wake]

10:42 AM on 02/17/2011

Does this mean killing the legislator who proposes such a bill would be justified?

After all, if the rationale for justifiable homicide is to be preemptive and to prevent loss of human life, then doesn't that mean the legislator himself has become a mass-murderer-to-be?

[George Global]

01:16 AM on 02/17/2011

Etymology of vigilante:
Vigil: to be watchful
Ante: to bet.
Wanna bet we should be watchful of them?

[greenie 61]

10:25 PM on 02/16/2011

Where do these nutbalz come from?!?!

[SirCoolBreeze]

06:41 PM on 02/16/2011

Another one from the Tea Party Air Force, Loon Squadron 13.

[booker52]

05:45 PM on 02/16/2011

This bill still should be voted down.

[plaidsportcoat]

05:31 PM on 02/16/2011

"this "would make it clear that 'justifiable homicide' can only apply in response to an unlawful act, which would obviously not include abortion, which is legal.""
Why are they paying this guy, in South Dakota, to make a law that is already a law? What a waste of time and money. Homicide is already illegal. He hasn't changed a thing, according to the update.

[Acert]

06:17 PM on 02/16/2011

He's just saying that to get it passed. He has every intention of allowing people to murder abortion doctors.

[Bobbiethejean]

05:24 PM on 02/16/2011

John BAWWWWWner needs a lot more than a rebuke.

[Bobbiethejean]

05:57 PM on 02/16/2011

Okeee? Why did this comment end up here? Was supposed to be on the one about John Boehner. XC Weird.

[janedarcy]

05:00 PM on 02/16/2011

Will the law include spouse abusers, child abusers and sex offenders?

[Janetshusb]

05:36 PM on 02/16/2011

Their only concern is the fetus. Why the fetus looms so large in their family values ideology and not the child it will become or the family that will raise it is incomprehensible/. Apparently there is some christian logic we are not privy to.

[theMightyT v3]

04:53 PM on 02/16/2011

um... what happened to the sanctity of life?

What difference does it make if it's a fetus or a doctor? life is life, aint' it?