Is South Dakota considering legalizing the killing of abortion providers?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I have to wonder why Representative Jensen didn’t know that the existing homicide statute covered the unborn.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I have to wonder why Representative Jensen didn’t know that the existing homicide statute covered the unborn.

Perhaps Representative Jensen is kind of a dim bulb.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Perhaps Representative Jensen is kind of a dim bulb.

Well, maybe. Perhaps some of his other bills might offer some insight on that issue:

Requiring schools to provide instruction on the Constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, substantive selections from the Federalist Papers, and President George Washington’s farewell address.

Can’t complain about that one.

A constitutional amendment barring state courts from applying international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code.

Oh dear.

Making it a felony to enforce Obamacare.

Getting worse.

Declaring Ronald Reagan Day!

I chuckled.

Endorsing Taiwan’s bid for membership in the ICAO and United Nations Convention on Climate Change.

What the fuck?

Criminalizing upskirt photography of minors.

Okay, I can get behind that.

Honoring Miss Rodeo America, McKenzie Haley.

Well, it is South Dakota.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I have to wonder why Representative Jensen didn’t know that the existing homicide statute covered the unborn.

The point is just to create any kind of legislative language referring to fetuses as people and trying to give them rights.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Bricker

I said the law could have been drafted better. The law’s author now says it could have been drafted better. So everyone agrees it could have been drafted better.

Well I don’t know. It seems to have been an unqualified success already:

• It gave Rep Jensen attention.

• It sent notice to providers of abortions that might dare to travel to this state to provide women a medical procedure they are entitled to; don’t try it buddy!

• It shored up Rep. Jensen’s bona fides; "see fellahs? I tried, but those lib’rul courts and the lib’rul media stopped me. Next time we’ll win, mkay? Send me a cheque.

So this attempt at making a law was simply full of win!

[monavis]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, to give some thought to a more “imminent” hypothetical…

A boyfriend is charging at his pregnant teen girlfriend, who has a staircase behind her… the father of the girl shoots the boyfriend…

I dunno, it seems to me that would be covered under conventional justifiable homicide whether she was pregnant or not. I suppose if the father shot the boyfriend as he was force-feeding the girl RU-486…

The intended purpose of this bill escapes me.

Isn’t Ru-486 the morning after pill? How could anyone know if the conception took place? as I understand it Ru-486 is only effective for a day or so. I would think that in such a scenerio, th act would be assult on the girl, not murder, so in the case of the boyfriend he wasn’t attempting murder. The father could have just knocked him out, and that would be justified assult!

Is a fertile egg a person? How can you kill an egg?

[monavis]

@Whack-a-Mole

“Scalia & Company” is my snarky way of saying “The Supreme Court” (the “& Company” part indicates I mean more than just Scalia).

So while “he” may have an opinion, one that certainly counts, I was asking for opinions on how the court would rule.

The “this” in my post was the idea that Dopers had already kicked around in the thread that since abortion is legal there is no issue. However, as noted in my post (and others before me), the law sidesteps the issue of abortion being legal and makes it ok to kill someone who will “harm the unborn”. That leaves a whole new door wide open since, definitionally, a person performing an abortion is harming the unborn.

In the killing of a fetus or ending a pregnancy that a woman wants is unlawful because it was her choice to keep the pregnancy until the birth of a child, until one can recognize the fertile egg etc. as a child it is not yet a child, any more than an apple blossom is an apple! It is just a religious belief that once the egg is fertile it is a baby! One cannot look at the cells in a petri dish and say ,“Oh what a cute little baby”. That is why abortion is legal until the child is formed. Then it is just a matter of saving the woman’s life( the only legal reason) for an abortion.

[foolsguinea]

@monavis

Isn’t Ru-486 the morning after pill? How could anyone know if the conception took place? as I understand it Ru-486 is only effective for a day or so.

No, that’s Plan B.

RU486, or rather Mifepristone, works through the first two months of pregnancy, & is an actual abortifacient rather than an anti-implantation drug. It’s pretty much a way to force a womb to miscarry, & makes a woman pretty ill in the process.

Two very different things.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Euphonious_Polemic

• It shored up Rep. Jensen’s bona fides; "see fellahs? I tried, but those lib’rul courts and the lib’rul media stopped me. Next time we’ll win, mkay? Send me a cheque.

Must be a shock to the people of South Dakota to discover they have a British state representative.

[villa]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I have some certain knowledge that half of Civil Procedure I and nearly all of Civil Procedure II are, in a sense, constitutional law classes- which I presume were also compulsory at your school. So count those too.

We just did one Civ Pro class, and it was rules based not constitution based. Yes, stuff like Pennoyer v Neff has constitutional elements to it. Federal Courts I might add as another Con Law class, but it sucked donkey balls so I have tried to block it out of my memory.

[monavis]

@foolsguinea

No, that’s Plan B.

RU486, or rather Mifepristone, works through the first two months of pregnancy, & is an actual abortifacient rather than an anti-implantation drug. It’s pretty much a way to force a womb to miscarry, & makes a woman pretty ill in the process.

Two very different things.

Thank you for clearing that up. What does plan B consist?

I had a mis- carriage in my early months of a pregnancy and the doctor showed me the pregnancy, it just looked like a blood clot to me, had no semblance of a baby.I stayed in the hospital for 10 days with my feet elevated and then the tests proved negative, so the doctor did a D and C. I was very ill after that. I had another where I just hemorraged for a few days.The doctor (I had then) said it was only a few weeks along at most,so there was nothing to see by the time I got to the doctor’s office. I saw no sign of a baby when I hemorraged!

[Ravenman]

@monavis

Thank you for clearing that up. What does plan B consist?

It is a higher dose of a regular ol’ birth control pill. Its primary effect is to prevent ovulation, as opposed to preventing implantation as some people believe.

Cite.

[monavis]

@Ravenman

It is a higher dose of a regular ol’ birth control pill. Its primary effect is to prevent ovulation, as opposed to preventing implantation as some people believe.

Cite.

Is that the Morning after pill? If so, then wouldn’t the woman would have already oviated?

[Richard_Parker]

@villa

But you neither study, nor really practice Con Law. I mean I guess a First Amendment lawyer does, but he or she probably won’t know jack shit about the 4th amendment compared to a criminal defense attorney.

There are a lot more constitutional generalists than “First Amendment lawyers.” Virtually every staff attorney at an ACLU state affiliate has a mix of First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment cases, and the same is true of similar organizations. But comparatively few attorneys focus exclusively on First Amendment cases. In my experience, the constitutional generalists have a better grasp on the Fourth Amendment than the average criminal attorney, but that’s probably just because it is much harder to get the job of constitutional generalist.

[villa]

@Richard_Parker

There are a lot more constitutional generalists than “First Amendment lawyers.” Virtually every staff attorney at an ACLU state affiliate has a mix of First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment cases, and the same is true of similar organizations. But comparatively few attorneys focus exclusively on First Amendment cases. In my experience, the constitutional generalists have a better grasp on the Fourth Amendment than the average criminal attorney, but that’s probably just because it is much harder to get the job of constitutional generalist.

Actually, that’s right. I’d say there are generally few “constitutional lawyers” in that sense, in comparison to the large number of say, criminal practitioners who make regular constitutional based arguments. But it is definitely true that those people you mention will have a very good grasp on these issues.