Pro-Lifers are Stupid and Short-Sighted
A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state’s GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state’s legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person “while resisting an attempt to harm” that person’s unborn child or the unborn child of that person’s spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman’s father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.
Riiiiight. I called Phil Jensen, whose home address, home phone, and business phone are listed on his webpage. I think I actually spoke to the man himself.
Riiiiiing…. riiiiiiiing
It rang quite awhile until someone picked up.
“Uh? Hello?” said a man’s voice on the other end.
“Is this Phil Jensen’s office?” I asked.
“Yes.. yes it is. Who’s this please?” The male voice on the other end didn’t have the confident tones of your typical receptionist. No “Office of State Representative Phil Jensen, how may I help you?” Kind of weird, but I proceeded.
“I’m calling from out of state,” I began, “because I’ve been reading about this law that the Representative has proposed, which expands ‘justifiable homicide’ to cover killing doctors that perform abortions. And… well, i don’t think this is the best way to address the issue of abortion.
“Look, I can understand the desire to reduce or end the practice of abortion, although I personally don’t agree with that desire myself,” I continued. “But banning abortion, however you go about it, is NOT going to work. In fact, it would be an ENORMOUS expense to the state, and by extension the taxpayers.”
Phil, or whoever the guy was, was silent through all of this. nothing to say.
“Your state, like almost every other state, has a Safe Haven law. And in your state, You can leave your baby, up to 60 days old, with an emergency medical services provider, or employee at any fire department, law enforcement agency, clinic or medical facility.”
It is not a crime for a parent to deliver a child to an emergency medical services provider or a licensed child-placing agency if the child has not been harmed prior to being left with the emergency medical services provider or a licensed child-placing agency.
The parent leaving the child is not required to provide any information, including the name of the parents.
The department or licensed child-placing agency may not attempt to identify, contact, or investigate the parent who voluntarily delivered the child to an emergency medical services provider or a licensed child-placing agency unless it appears the child has been harmed.
If a parent of a child relinquishes custody of the child to an emergency medical services provider or a licensed child-placing agency, then, after 14 days, by operation of law:
* All of that parent’s rights with respect to the child are terminated.
* The child becomes a ward of the State or licensed child-placing agency.
Add to that blockquote some language from a pdf that won’t let me copy text, specifically paragraph 25-5A-30 “Questions concerning child’s medical history: No parental obligation to provide information”.
“Do you have kids? I have one, and let me tell you it is a lot more EXPENSIVE to raise a child than it is to pay for an abortion. How much do you think it costs to raise a kid with a physical or mental disability? Or one born addicted to crack? You pass laws like this, and you may find that you didn’t really want what you thought you did: I can predict a number of women who don’t want to have children will simply dump their unwanted babies anywhere they can. Then the taxpayers will have to pay for these wards of the state. That’s going to mean tax increases eventually.
“And that says nothing about health and social outcomes for these children,
“I realize you don’t need to pass on comments from out-of-state callers, but I hope you’ll do so. This is a bad proposal, not only for women and children, but for South Dakota’s taxpayers.”
The guy said thank you, but i know he won’t pass the message along. He’s a moron.
