Kate Sheppard reports on an attempt by Republicans in South Dakota to include the killing of abortion providers in the state's definition of "justifiable homicide," essentially making it legal for the family members of a woman getting an abortion to murder her abortion provider:
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.
I gave Markos Moulitsas a hard time for his broad comparison of the American right to the Taliban, but this is one instance where the notion applies. This bill essentially legalizes terrorism, with the intent of reducing the number of abortion providers by forcing them to operate under the threat of state-sanctioned murder. In keeping with recent efforts by Republicans to limit a woman's ability to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, the legalized terrorism portion of the bill is merely the most sensational institutional barrier being erected. As with the national GOP's effort to redefine rape while defunding women's health services, devoting full attention to that particular proposal avoids all the other South Dakota bills that seek to make it more difficult for women to have abortions.
Sheppard reports that one bill would force women into "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" that typically mislead women about the abortion process, and another bill that would force women to wait several days after counseling before terminating a pregnancy, and force the doctor to essentially try to talk them out of it. As Sheppard writes, "Extending the wait time and requiring a woman to consult first with the doctor, then with the CPC, and then meet with the doctor again before she can undergo the procedure would add additional burdens for women—especially for women who work or who already have children."
South Dakota's attempt to legalize terrorism in the case of abortion providers seems like the most likely element of the new abortion restrictions to get shut down, if any. Even if it passes, it's hard to imagine it surviving a 14th amendment challenge. But even if it does fail, there are plenty of other ways South Dakota might make it more difficult to have an abortion.
Naturally, South Dakota is among the states that are trying to pass hysterical bans on sharia law. Rep. Jensen is a co-sponsor. Note that the bill would merely ban judges from applying a "foreign religious or moral code."
No such court may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction.
See, there's a separation of mosque and state, not a separation of church and state, because Islam is for ferreners.
Laws like these are the reason I see right-wing panic over closet Muslim fundamentalists subverting the Constitution as anything more than tribalist religious rivalry--they don't oppose theocracy, just Islamic theocracy. Who needs "stealth jihadists" trying to impose their religious views on everyone else when you have the folks in the South Dakota Republican Party?
UPDATE: Greg Sargent talks to Jensen, who claims that the bill would only make the killing of someone who conducted an illegal abortion legal. Sheppard reports that the bill has been changed, removing the "justifiable homicide" defense for family members. Now, the bill only allows for justifiable homicide if the woman is defending herself.
