I’m not following your parsing. 21-16-35 reads:[
](http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm)
The ‘or’ conjunctions are alternates for “such person,” yielding:
Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of … the unborn child of [people just listed], if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to [cause harm].
What I’m trying to do here is reconcile the two sections. Subsection 34 clearly applies to the supposed defense of the shooter’s unborn child and no one else’s.
Subsection 35 just sticks some unborn child language in the middle of a pretty standard provision for the use of deadly force in defense of another. I can’t see Sec. 35 as extending the protection of Sec. 34 to the unborn child of, for instance, your employee. It is an awkward construction in the second section.
As I said above, you need to read the whole statute and you need to try to reconcile the conflicts.
Here, again is the whole thing, which I read as little more than an “open season on abortionists” law:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
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.
OK, so, in theory, could a woman go into an abortion clinic -ostensibly to have an abortion- and “change her mind” during the procedure, killing the doctor performing the procedure. Would that be justifiable under the proposed law?
Sure looks like it, doesn’t it. It is her unborn child and it looks as if that’s all that is needed. Saying “stop I’ve changed my mind” might be more reasonable, but the proposed statute seem to contemplate just that.
Republican idiots in the Missouri General Assembly are at it again, proposing solutions in search of a problem, and getting national attention for it. State Senator Jean Cunningham sponsored
Stupid Republican Idea of the Day legislation to put 12 year olds to work. The proposal drew attention from Jay Leno last night. The worst thing, Cunningham is somehow Chairman of the General Laws committee that will hold hearings on the bill.
The Spav (as we like to call him) has earned a reputation for clarity and quiet dignity you would be welll advised to admire.
A grateful but restrained nod to my learned friend from the frozen wasteland beyond the Root River Valley.
With the onset of the February thaw we can all expect that he will soon cut himself out of his winter underwear, the burning of which is the sure and certain harbinger of Spring along the Upper Mississippi. If there ever were any decent painters from Minnesota we can be sure that the seminal picture would be titled “Burning the Winter Underwear,” and it would have the same iconic status as Grant Wood’s “American Gothic” or “Spring Corn.”
I don’t know. A *seminal *picture? I’m thinking more along the lines of Maplethorpe. Or am I thinking ‘semenal?’
Aw, hell, Spav, go wild! Nod twice, let yer ya-yas out! Neighbors aren’t looking!
Now, about this “underwear” of which you speak…?
Bachmann now decides that if the government gives you a tax break for something, you’re spending government money:
[
Interesting how all of a sudden a tax cut is a bad thing.
What a boob!
Governor Scott Walker reveals his secret plans to a reporter claiming to be David Koch.
Not so secret no more…
Oh, look, now the Buffalo Beast website is down.
So I think he said to the “fake” reporter that:
I have no intention of negotiating or listening to my democrat colleagues. I only said I would talk to them in order to fool them into returning to the state. Once they are physically here, I will wait for them to take a recess, then claim we have quorum and jam the legislation through without them.
Nice.
Yet another Fox Typo: Gallup poll which shows 61 percent of its respondents oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to bust unions is characterized on Fox & Friends as showing the exact opposite.
After discussing the implications of this for a good chunk of the show, in the final minute of the show, Brian Kilmeade noted the mistake and issued an apology. In the final minute. Plausible deniability, anyone? “Oh, yeah, we corrected that error, our bad.”
Why would any self-respecting reporter call Fox “News” a news network? It is an insult to the entire profession.
I want someone to interview Dick Tuck about this.
“Fox ‘n’ Friend” is in full-on anti-union mode. This morning I caught a part of a story where they were presenting a speech from the head of some teacher’s organization … I can’t remember which … saying essentially: ‘If we want to make a difference in education standards we need the power of the union.’ This story was presented with the title splash: Education Leader’s Focus: Power, Not Children.
The very next story was a cry and moan piece because *Waiting for Superman *was ‘snubbed’ in Oscar nominations. The reason: it’s critical of unions, of course.
An opinion piece from FoxNews.com today: Egyptian Protest Is No Tea Party. Now, I find most comparisons between what’s happening in Egypt and anything else flat-out stupid, but that’s not why I’m posting. Rather, I read the following single, small point of comparison contained therein:
Which is so mind-numbingly stupid that I think I experienced a short loss of consciousness while my mental gears spun trying to process it. The fact is, according to the CIA World Factbook, that Egypt’s ethnic population is 99.6% homogenous Egyptian. Kinda dismisses the point with prejudice, dunnit?
But Egypt is in Africa, Africa is full of black people.
Therefore Egypt must be full of black people.