No legislator in SD is advocating killing abortion doctors, geesh.

Quite the firestorm here today in our state capital. A bill I co-sponsored has been spun out of control by pro-abortion bloggers and then, even media venues we'd hope would be more responsible ran with headlines like… House Bill Could Make Killing Abortion Doctors A Justifiable Homicide.  In moments those kinds of headlines spread like wildfire all over the nation putting South Dakota's legislature, once more, unfairly, in a bad light.

Those who've read my blog here these past few years know I fight hard for the unborn and yet, I was quick to renounce the 2009 cold-blooded murder of Dr. Tiller, the late-term abortion doctor in Wichita who killed more babies than America lost soldiers in Vietnam.  Even so, the same day he was gunned down in his church, I said this: "Really, really, horrible and sad. Every life is valuable, including Tiller's."

It is not true that I or any other legislator here in Pierre are advocating killing abortion doctors. This is the amended language in HB-1171 which is causing this stir:

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
accomplished.

I thought I'd share here what I wrote on the online forum at the Argus Leader about media spin today

No legislator in South Dakota is advocating killing abortionists. HB1171 applies to attempts to MURDER the unborn. Abortion in South Dakota is NOT murder therefore HB1171 as amended applies to everyone else BUT abortionists. This bill has nothing to do with abortion or abortion doctors. It's disappointing the Argus went with these headlines. 

Though I'm listed a co-sponsor, HB1171 was hoghoused/extensively amended in the Judiciary Committee and the bill now clearly says on the top for all to read - "…extensively amended and may no longer be consistent with the original intention or the sponsor(s)." In other words, it's not the bill I signed.

The ORIGINAL bill read as follows: It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for homicide as defined in § 22-16-1 or assault as defined in § 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 that the defendant is a pregnant woman who used force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if: (1) Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she would be justified under § 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child; and (2) She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.

The original point of the bill was to make our state's self-defense laws consistent with other laws on our books regarding homicide - like our statutes which say killing a pregnant woman would be two murders. What if the intent of the killer was not to kill her, but only her child?? That is what this bill addresses. I signed on to this law in its original form because I know of an example where a boyfriend started kicking his girlfriend's stomach to kill their child and she defended herself and unborn child and he ended up dead. The girlfriend went to jail for murder because it was not his intent to kill her, only her child. So, our existing self-defense laws didn't apply. HB1171 was an attempt to include unborn children in our self-defense statutes.

I don't like the language in the amendment at all - and I hope in deferring it one day we will see better language tomorrow. I was not in the Judiciary Committee where and when HB-1171 was extensively amended (hoghoused) and therefore I can't speak to how it arrived in it's present form, or why. I was looking forward to hearing that all explained on the House floor as the langauge is nothing like what it was originally, and my name is still on it.

Again, this bill has nothing to do with abortions or abortion doctors and I'm disappointed the Argus followed the lead of the pro-abortion bloggers who stirred the pot on this bill. I see the Rapid City Journal gave a responsible headline that actually fit the bill… South Dakota House Considers Fetus Defense Bill - http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_17a634b0-3947-11e0-bae0-001cc4c03286.html

As to whether I'll vote on this tomorrow, it's too early to say for reasons I mentioned above. However, it would be unfortunate if the pro-aborts were successful in killing what was originally intended to be a good fetal defense bill.

Here is an example of what this bill was originally intended to address.  Sad stuff.

Now for some additional commentary from me that is related to this firestorm, but fully unrelated to HB-1171… Abortion is violent - a separate distinct living human being is dismembered without anesthesia - some studies show the unborn feel pain at 8 weeks.   Fifty-five million unborn children have been killed in America since 1973. Fifty-five million. And, eight abortion doctors have been killed and there were 13 other attempts.  I denounce every one. Yet here again we have a grand diversion off the violence of abortion and the plight of the unborn.

When you get a moment, Google "murder victims by occupation" and you'll see police officers, judges, bankers, journalists, and missionaries at the top of the list. Abortionists have a pretty safe profession considering.  Yet, they are the only ones in South Dakota who are afforded the full protection of the law while they go about their work of dismembering South Dakota children without anesthesia.