# Is South Dakota considering legalizing the killing of abortion providers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512 "2011-02-15T23:18:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/61 "2011-02-16T15:29:47Z")
Its just another attempt to subjugate women by a group of self-righteous holier-than-thou legislators/(hypocrites) who wish to impose their standards on women. South Dakota has gone way down hill since I left that stat, not that my departure had anything to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/62 "2011-02-16T15:30:42Z")
Assume for the sake of argument that the wording of this bill does make it legal for a private citizen to kill a doctor about to perform an abortion. It can’t be constitutional, can it? If it were, then the state could curtail all sorts of constitutionally protected rights simply by allowing private actors to prevent their exercise through force. The Bill of Rights would become meaningless. I would think that any judge who is the least bit intellectually honest would say such a thing is unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/63 "2011-02-16T15:44:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I can’t think of a third possibility now. I don’t know that I’d say _poorly_ drafted, just that it could have been drafted better. I think we’ve all essentially agreed that the plain language could conceivably legalize the killing of an abortion provider by a third party. The argument seems to be over whether that was the intent of the drafters. The failure to include an exception for legal abortion providers is hence either poor drafting, or suggests malicious intent. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/64 "2011-02-16T15:50:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I can’t think of a third possibility now. I don’t know that I’d say _poorly_ drafted, just that it could have been drafted better. If it’s not poorly drafted, you should be able to tell us exactly what it does and does not permit, citing the actual lnaguage, not your own interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/65 "2011-02-16T15:52:22Z")
Don’t be silly. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/66 "2011-02-16T15:55:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If it’s not poorly drafted, you should be able to tell us exactly what it does and does not permit, citing the actual lnaguage, not your own interpretation. A single statute doesn’t exist in a vacuum. As I hinted above, laws are read _in pari materia_. I can tell you what it does and does not permit, but to use only the language from that statute would be ridiculous, since that’s not how laws are actually interpreted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/67 "2011-02-16T15:56:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think we’ve all essentially agreed that the plain language could conceivably legalize the killing of an abortion provider by a third party. The argument seems to be over whether that was the intent of the drafters. The failure to include an exception for legal abortion providers is hence either poor drafting, or suggests malicious intent. No, “we” haven’t all agreed with that. Most especially, the people that have agreed to that proposition do not, so far as I know, have any particular experience or expertise in criminal law. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/68 "2011-02-16T15:57:38Z")
We haven’t agreed that it could _conceivably_ do so, or that it actually does so? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/69 "2011-02-16T15:57:44Z")
That’s obfuscation. You can’t tell us what the statute does and does not permit. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/70 "2011-02-16T16:42:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, “we” haven’t all agreed with that. Most especially, the people that have agreed to that proposition do not, so far as I know, have any particular experience or expertise in criminal law. If you’re trying to make that claim, [the very article linked in Mother Jones](http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers) quotes [Sara Rosenbaum](http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=3265), law Professor at George Washington University School of Law, as making substantively the same claims. Of course, I fully expect you to pick that nit and say that she “does not have experience or expertise in _criminal_ law.” Which at point I will say, neither have you since you went into government contracting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/71 "2011-02-16T16:54:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We haven’t agreed that it could _conceivably_ do so, or that it actually does so? We haven’t agreed that it actually does so. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/72 "2011-02-16T16:57:16Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > If you’re trying to make that claim, [the very article linked in Mother Jones](http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers) quotes [Sara Rosenbaum](http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=3265), law Professor at George Washington University School of Law, as making substantively the same claims. > > Of course, I fully expect you to pick that nit and say that she “does not have experience or expertise in _criminal_ law.” Which at point I will say, neither have you since you went into government contracting. > [@](#): > > Professor Rosenbaum, who received her J.D. from Boston University Law School, has focused her career on access to health care for low income, minority and medically underserved populations. She has played a major role in the design of national health policy in areas such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurance and employee health benefits, access to health care for medically underserved persons, maternal and child health, civil rights and health care, and public health. Professor Rosenbaum worked for the White House Domestic Policy Council from1993-1994, where she directed the drafting of the Health Security Act for President Clinton and oversaw development of the Vaccines for Children program. I’ve defended hundreds of criminal cases as an advocate. So far as I can tell, Professor Rosenbaum has never stepped into a courtroom as an advocate, much less a criminal advocate. How does the fact that I went into government contracting erase my prior experience and expertise in criminal law? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/73 "2011-02-16T16:58:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s obfuscation. You can’t tell us what the statute does and does not permit. Ah, yes, the Oracle of Minnesota speaks. Why can’t I, apart from the fact that You have Pronounced it So? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/74 "2011-02-16T17:01:11Z")
A hypothetical: A state is currently governed by a very left wing political party. They have been trying to ban industries that they consider to be polluting from operating in their state, but have been stymied by federal laws that limit their ability to ban specific companies. The political party then introduces the following state legislation: 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 damage the environment of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the harm to the health of citizens, 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 environmental well being of such person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, or imminent damage to the environment and imminent danger of such design being accomplished. Would people simply say: “It’s OK – a court would not interpret the law as giving everyone the right to kill polluters” “It is simply poorly drafted, and would be overturned by the supreme court anyway” I would think that the actual PURPOSE of this badly written law is to create an atmosphere of fear, that will accomplish the goals of the left-leaning politicians; driving away companies that they do not want. They know that the law they passed would never be successfully used in the courts. They don’t care. The purpose is to send a message to the companies that they cannot operate in the state. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/75 "2011-02-16T17:09:52Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The failure to include **an exception for legal abortion providers** is hence either poor drafting, or suggests malicious intent. Again, isn’t that exception provided by 22-16-35’s clause about “design to commit a felony”? A legal abortionist has no such design. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/76 "2011-02-16T17:10:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. Alarmed at the prospect of 18 years of child support, the man responsible for an unwanted pregnancy wants his erstwhile girlfriend to have an abortion; she refuses and insists on keeping the baby. > > So he punches her in the stomach with the intent to cause a miscarriage. Not seeing how the proposed SD law does anything here. If the guy punches Peggy Pregnant it is a done deal. After that you have retaliation for him punching her. How would anyone know beforehand to stop him? If he is repeatedly punching her such that a bystander may now think to stop him why do current laws not suffice? ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/77 "2011-02-16T17:16:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ve defended hundreds of criminal cases as an advocate. So far as I can tell, Professor Rosenbaum has never stepped into a courtroom as an advocate, much less a criminal advocate. How many cases were in South Dakota? How many cases involved self-defense? How many cases involving abortion rights were you involved in? “Experience” means nothing unless it’s the right kind of experience. > [@](#): > > How does the fact that I went into government contracting erase my prior experience and expertise in criminal law? What experience? How do we know about your experience? For all I know, you’re just some schlub on the internet who found a WestLaw subscription. Seriously, I’m going to believe a law professor whose body of work I can Google over “some guy on the Internet”. Every. Single. Day. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/78 "2011-02-16T17:22:09Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > How many cases were in South Dakota? > > How many cases involved self-defense? > > How many cases involving abortion rights were you involved in? > > “Experience” means nothing unless it’s the right kind of experience. Criminal defense work is similar, regardless of the specific charge in a particular case. Similar procedure, similar strategies. Death penalty cases are a little different, and in my state require either previous experience or co-counsel with someone else who has previous experience as lead counsel in a death penalty case. IIRC, \*\*Bricker \*\* used to be a Public Defender in the federal courts. From the things he has posted in the past, I see no reason to doubt his word. He talks like a lawyer, he seems to think like a lawyer, and while I do not always agree with his opinions, I will say that those opinions are consistent with what I would expect from someone that has the experience he claims to have. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/79 "2011-02-16T17:26:24Z")
**Oak** , I respect you. But **Bricker** is the one who claimed we were ignorant, and he had knowledge. It’s up to him to show his work. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512/80 "2011-02-16T17:59:21Z")
Actually, as I read the brief quote from Professor Rosenbaum and **Bricker** ’s arguments, they are essentially saying the same thing: that laws on the same subject have to be read together to come to any meaningful understanding. The Professor states, ““It takes my breath away,” she says in an email to Mother Jones. “Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act.”” I take this to mean that the state does not have the authority to overturn Roe vs. Wade by futzing around with justifiable homicide statutes. **Bricker** has said that this bill has to be read with the understanding that the constitutional question of abortion has pretty much been settled, and therefore the statute can only be read to pertain to situations like the “punch the pregnant girl in the stomach” one. (Though I may be inserting a few words in his mouth there.) I think it is pretty clear in terms of APPLYING the law that the state cannot declare open season on OB/GYNs, and that the law could really only be used to justify the acts of someone who is trying to stop someone from beating up a pregnant woman. I think it is pretty clear how the courts would interpret the statute, but the question in my mind is what the bill’s author is trying to accomplish. Is he trying to leave some ambiguity in the minds of the unwashed masses who don’t spend lots of time trying to understand the law, but who wouldn’t mind if some “abortion doctors” got attacked? Is the esteemed sponsor of the bill is trying to whip up extremist violence by throwing out some red meat to his political base? I do not exclude the possibility that the sponsor is trying to simultaneously scare the living shit out of doctors who perform these legal medical services, while knowing that anyone who kills a doctor would still end up going to jail. My vote, at this point, is that the bill’s sponsor is perfidious asshole politician. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-south-dakota-considering-legalizing-the-killing-of-abortion-providers/571512.md?page=5)