The South Dakota State Legislature is currently considering a bill to broaden the state’s definition of justifiable homicide to protect killing in the defense of an unborn child.
As of Feb. 9, House Bill 1171 modifies existing legislation on justifiable homicide to include any attempt to murder “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.” The bill also extends this protection to the person’s “husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person.”
Abortion defenders claim the bill encourages violence against abortion clinic doctors by extremists or family members, while the bill’s advocates claim their goal is protecting a woman’s right to self-defense.
When asked about the intention of the bill, its sponsor, State Rep. Phil Jensen, replied, “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-girlfriend’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.”
I don’t think anyone would argue with a woman’s right to defend herself in this situation, and although I was unable to locate any instance of this specific situation ever happening in South Dakota, women should have the right to defend themselves and their wombs.
Luckily, women in South Dakota are already protected in this situation, as the current justifiable homicide law in the state reads, “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.”
So if the hypothetical girlfriend kills her boyfriend she is still protected under the law, because at the very least she was subjected to aggravated assault.
Most abortion defenders take issue with the second clause, which extends protection to close relatives who protect an unborn child from harm. They assert it could be used to justify the murder of abortion clinic doctors.
In May 2009, anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller while the abortion clinic doctor was attending church in Wichita, Kan.
During his trial, Roeder defended his actions by saying he was protecting the lives of unborn children, but was promptly convicted of first-degree murder. Defenders of abortion rights argue if House Bill 1171 passes it would set a precedent for a justifiable homicide defense in the prosecution of criminals such as Roeder.
Jensen asserted, the bill “only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion.”
Jensen neglected to mention the state’s two failed attempts to ban abortion in the state in 2006 and 2008. Both initiatives were defeated by more than 10 points. He also failed to reference the “trigger law” South Dakota passed along with five other states, including Louisiana, which would immediately make abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned.
Thankfully, Jensen is considering changing the wording of the bill to specifically protect abortion doctors, or even drop the bill entirely.
This bill should be retracted because its intended purpose is already accomplished under existing laws, and it could potentially promote violence against doctors.
South Dakota only has one abortion clinic as it is, and if this bill passes, the legislature might just get its wish and scare Planned Parenthood out of the state for good.
Andrew Shockey is a 20-year-old biological engineering sophomore from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_Ashockey.
 
 
 
 
____
Contact Andrew Shockey at [email protected]