NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label "justifiable homicide". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "justifiable homicide". Show all posts

02 March 2011

Revealed: The Group Behind the Bills that Could Legalize Killing Abortion Providers 28FEB11

THE thing that really gets me about all these bills is that most of the people and organizations writing them, submitting them as legislation and supporting them are Christians (I will not get into judging their claims of faith, I will leave that to God). These people who profess to cherish and value human life think nothing of supporting legislation that will result in murders. AND these same people and organizations who cherish and value human life are generally opposed to the government providing a social safety net for those who need it that will provide the basic health care, nutrition, housing needs, education and more for the women, children, and families that need it, completely disregarding the teachings of Jesus Christ, especially in the Beatitudes and in Matthew 25. 
Americans United for Life at the US Supreme Court in January 2011.
It's no coincidence that bills to expand justifiable homicide laws have popped up in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa. Meet the group that launched the effort.
First, it was South Dakota. Then Nebraska and Iowa. The similarly worded bills, which have quietly cropped up recently in state legislatures, share a common purpose: To expand justifiable homicide statutes to cover killings committed in the defense of an unborn child. Critics of the bills, including law enforcement officials, warn that these measures could invite violence against abortion providers and possibly provide legal cover to the perpetrators of such crimes.
That these measures have emerged simultaneously in a handful of states is no coincidence. It's part of a campaign orchestrated by a Washington-based anti-abortion group, which has lobbied state lawmakers to introduce legislation that it calls the "Pregnant Woman's Protection Act" [PDF]. Over the past two years, the group, Americans United for Life, has succeeded in passing versions of this bill in Missouri and Oklahoma. But there's a big difference between those bills and the measures floated recently in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa.
While the Oklahoma and Missouri laws specifically cover pregnant women, the latest measures are far more sweeping and would apply to third parties. The bills are so loosely worded, abortion-rights advocates say, that a pregnant woman could seek out an abortion and a boyfriend, husband—or, in some cases, just about anyone—could be justified in using deadly force to stop it.
A Planned Parenthood official testified last week at a hearing on Nebraska's LB 232 that such legislation "authorizes and protects vigilantes." And it isn't just abortion-rights advocates who fear the implications of the AUL-inspired legislation. "This could be used to incite violence against abortion providers," said Omaha's deputy chief of police, David Baker. The office of South Dakota's Republican governor—no defender of abortion-rights—has called the version of the bill introduced in the state's legislature a "very bad idea." (Following a national outcry, the South Dakota bill was shelved.)
Lawmakers who have sponsored their own versions of AUL's legislation, including South Dakota's Phil Jensen and Nebraska's Mark Christensen, say their measures were inspired by a 1999 case in Michigan, in which a pregnant woman killed her boyfriend after he punched her twice in the stomach. (Jensen did not respond to a call and an email seeking comment.) Jaclyn Kurr, who eventually miscarried quadruplets, was convicted of manslaughter based partially on the fact that she had a history of criminal offenses—a ruling that was later overturned on appeal.
The case opened a thorny debate about fetal personhood and it became a rallying cry for anti-abortion groups seeking to advance the rights of the unborn. It features prominently in the introduction to AUL's model legislation [PDF], which was drafted by Denise Burke, the group's vice president for legal affairs. "Applying the affirmative defense of 'defense of others' to protect the unborn is a victory for women and children, and opens a new chapter in the fight to protect the lives of the unborn," Burke writes in the 9-page document. (AUL asked that questions be submitted in writing, but declined to respond to a detailed request for comment from Mother Jones.)
The Kurr episode is "a lesson Nebraska doesn't want to repeat" Christensen said during a hearing last week on his bill. "I personally do not want to see a pregnant woman in Nebraska go through the same trauma of losing her unborn child, her baby, and then be prosecuted and punished by trying to protect the child from its attacker."
In an interview, Christensen told Mother Jones that AUL "brought the idea" and "helped draft the language" for the bill he introduced. And he said he was unaware of the controversy a bill similar to his had caused in South Dakota a week earlier. In fact, he added, "I didn't realize it'd been introduced other places, so I'll have to evaluate that."
Christensen added that he regretted citing the Kurr case in support of his legislation: "As I look more at the Michigan case, there were a lot of outlying factors," he said. "It was probably not a good one for me to have been quoting." After Christensen's bill was criticized for opening the door to violence against abortion providers, he said he had decided to "narrow it down to just protecting mother and unborn child."
AUL's efforts to expand justifiable homicide statutes are part of a broader push by social conservatives to advance the political front lines on abortion and other social issues. After Republicans won the House of Representatives and swept to almost unprecedented state-level success in November, social conservatives were invigorated. Since state and federal legislative sessions began in January, they have pushed GOP lawmakers to introduce scores of bills aimed at promoting what they call a "culture of life."
That effort hasn't failed to stir up controversy. At the federal level, House Republicans have attempted to limit the circumstances under which the government would pay for abortions to cases of "forcible rape," a measure that was eventually dropped after it caused a national furor in January. Since then, cuts in federal funding for family planning, proposals specifically outlawing funding for Planned Parenthood, a Georgia bill that could criminalize some miscarriages, and the series of AUL-backed bills allowing for justifiable homicide in defense of a fetus have all helped put the culture wars back on the nation's front pages. With conservatives riding a wave of 2010 success and anti-Obama feeling into the 2012 elections, anti-abortion forces are just getting started.
Nick Baumann covers national politics and civil liberties issues for Mother Jones' DC Bureau. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter and Facebook. Email tips and insights to nbaumann [at] motherjones [dot] com. Get Nick Baumann's RSS feed.
Daniel Schulman is Mother Jones' Washington-based senior editor. For more of his stories, click here. To follow him on Twitter, click here. Email him at dschulman (at) motherjones.com. Get Daniel Schulman's RSS feed.

19 February 2011

REPUBLICAN WAR ON WOMEN 19FEB11

IF YOU DIDN'T VOTE IN THE LAST ELECTIONS THEN YOU ARE AS MUCH TO BLAME FOR THIS AND WHAT IS TO COME AS THOSE WHO VOTED FOR THIS EXTREME RIGHT WING AGENDA. DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT!
It might seem hyperbolic to say that Republicans have declared a war on women.
Sadly, it's not.
Just take a look at the top 10 shocking, crazy things Republicans have proposed in recent weeks. If you think this constitutes a war on women, please share this email far and wide—forward it, and post it on Facebook and Twitter.
I wish I could say these were the only examples of the Republican war on women. But it's just a sampling, and more is sure to come—unless we raise a ruckus and call them out. So please, share this email today.
Thanks,
Kat

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP War on Women

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids. 
5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).
Please share this email today. Just click the links to post on Facebook and Twitter.
Sources:
1. "'Forcible Rape' Language Remains In Bill To Restrict Abortion Funding," The Huffington Post, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206084&id=26177-17549061-tYY5xlx&t=6
"Extreme Abortion Coverage Ban Introduced," Center for American Progress, January 20, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205961&id=26177-17549061-tYY5xlx&t=7
2. "Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As 'Accusers,'" The Huffington Post, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206007&id=26177-17549061-tYY5xlx&t=8
3. "South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors," Salon, February 15, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206102&id=26177-17549061-tYY5xlx&t=9
4. "House GOP Proposes Cuts to Scores of Sacred Cows," National Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206103&id=26177-17549061-tYY5xlx&t=10
5. "New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion," Talking Points Memo, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205974&id=26177-17549061-tYY5xlx&t=11
6. "Republican Officials Cut Head Start Funding, Saying Women Should be Married and Home with Kids," Think Progress, February 16, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/16/gop-women-kids/
7. "Bye Bye, Big Bird. Hello, E. Coli," The New Republic, Feburary 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206104&id=26177-17549061-tYY5xlx&t=12
8. "House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy," The Hill, February 16, 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy-
9. "House passes measure stripping Planned Parenthood funding," MSNBC, February 18,2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206122&id=26177-17549061-tYY5xlx&t=13
"GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds," Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206105&id=26177-17549061-tYY5xlx&t=14
10. Ibid.
Birth Control for Horses, Not for Women," Blog for Choice, February 17, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206106&id=26177-17549061-tYY5xlx&t=15

17 February 2011

SOUTH DAKOTA SHELVES JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BILL 17FEB11

FOR more on this bill see my earlier post on this blog 'SD REP ON JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BILL 15FEB11'. Thank God for the internet and responsible new media which mobilized the nation to cry out against this insane legislation which doesn't represent the views of the voters of South Dakota, who have rejected all voter referendums outlawing and/or severely restricting women's birth control and abortion in the state. This from the Washington Post Plum Line...
* South Dakota shelves "justifiable homicide" bill: The state legislature has now indefinitely postponed plans for a vote on that bill making homicide justifiable to defend the life of the unborn in some cases, and may drop it entirely. I reported here yesterday that its author was reconsidering the plan.
It's interesting to consider that if it hadn't been for blogs and new media, this bill could very well have become law, though it's still unclear what real-world legal consequences that would have had.

15 February 2011

SD Rep. on Justifiable Homicide Bill: "This Has Got Nothing to Do With Abortion" 15FEB11

I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice because I believe the ultimate choice to have an abortion belongs to the woman. I am opposed to the hypocrites that want to limit abortion because they believe it is murder but who also oppose adequate funding for maternal, women's and children's health care, nutrition programs, housing, education and even increasing the minimum wage...all the programs that provide a better quality of life for the least among us. This proposed legislation in S. Dakota is extremely disturbing, and will push some of the extreme right wing fanatics of the anti-choice community (I REFUSE TO CALL THEM PRO LIFE BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY OF THEIR VIEWS) to take deadly action against doctors and clinics that provide abortion services. This from Mother Jones....

My story today on a measure in South Dakota that would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—which pro-choice groups fear could be interpreted as making it legally defensible to kill an abortion provider—has caused quite a stir.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Phil Jensen (R), spoke to Mother Jones on Tuesday morning, after the story was published. He disagreed with this interpretation of the bill, claiming that it is simply meant to "bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide." This echoes the 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." Jensen also aggressively defended the bill in an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent on Tuesday morning.
Even if one accepts Jensen's argument—which is a stretch, given the long list of anti-abortion advocates called to testify in favor of it—the bill is, in the very least, an attempt to classify a fetus as a person. Fetal personhood measures are a tactic often used by the anti-abortion movement to give the fetus the same set of rights as a person—setting the precedent, of course, to interpret abortion as murder.
Further, whatever the "intent" Jensen had for the bill, given the bill's vague language, it certainly leaves itself open to the interpretation that defense of a fetus qualifies as "justifiable homicide." It also provides legal justification for the kind of extremists who would seek to kill an abortion doctor. Then there's the fear element. Anti-abortion lawmakers know they don't actually have to make it technically legal to kill a doctor—merely opening up the possibility of that interpretation in hopes of may discourage doctors from offering the service in the state. Given the history of violence against providers, this is no insignificant issue.
And Jensen's argument that this law wouldn't apply in the case of the killing of an abortion provider belies the fact that the South Dakota legislature has tried multiple times to make abortion illegal in the state. It is currently legal, but not for a lack of trying on the part of lawmakers like Jensen. Jensen is also a cosponsor of the other bill I mentioned in the story that would force women to seek counseling at a Crisis Pregnancy Center—a measure clearly intended to discourage women from following through with an abortion.
The bill's opponents in the state legislature also consider it a dangerous measure that could make killing abortion doctor permissible. "This bill sets a dangerous precedent to supporters of choice everywhere," said Rep. Kevin Killer (D), one of only three votes against it in committee last week. As it is written, said Killer, the measure "provides no protection" for against individuals who believe they are trying to harm the fetus. It also sets a dangerous precedent. "This will have a profound impact on states everywhere if the language of this bill stands," said Killer.
A vote on the measure is scheduled for 2:30 Central today.
UPDATE: The vote on the bill has reportedly been moved to Wednesday.

South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers