WE NEED A LAW AND ORDER: SOUTH DAKOTA  1:10 pm February 15, 2011

South Dakota Legalizing Abortion(-Doctor Murder)

by Jack Stuef

Fixing it.While those useless fat cats in D.C. twiddle their thumbs and let our country sink perilously into debt and endless unemployment, the hardworking legislators of America’s heartland and working together to get things done for their citizens. Yeah, we’re talking about legalizing murder, a common-sense solution to pretty much every problem. South Dakota is considering a bill that would change the state’s definition of homicide so it’s legal to kill a doctor who tries to give a woman an abortion, as long as that woman is your daughter, mother, or wife. Anyway, everyone is rather closely related in South Dakota, right? So basically any South Dakotan can just go around shooting doctors “on demand,” according to this state Rep. Phil Jensen’s bill. Man, all the other South Dakota legislators have to be kicking themselves that they didn’t think of this brilliant “pro-life” strategy first.

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.

The bill has since been overhauled, probably because if this thing passed, it wouldn’t be long before there was literally no way for South Dakota Republicans to make abortion more illegal. The ultimate solution is to make adult citizens less human in the eyes of the law than microscopic balls of cells that could potentially grow into a baby. And that’s not far off.

Apparently the taxpayers of South Dakota want to have fewer rights than a bunch of brainless weird little pre-children who float around without contributing anything to society. Not only that, but these things sap free health care from South Dakotans and don’t have proper Social Security numbers. Hmm, is SOUTH DAKOTA SUPPORTING ILLEGALS? [Mother Jones]

 

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

{ 217 comments }

Billmatic February 15, 2011 at 1:14 pm

I really can't believe this item, this is really horrible. I can't even make a smart assy comment about this, it's just *awful*.

Whoever wrote this bill should be impeached and removed.

Terry February 15, 2011 at 1:42 pm

I was thinking that he should be put in stocks in front of the State capitol building and ridiculed.

Billmatic February 15, 2011 at 3:50 pm

I thought that's what "impeachment" was?

i_AM_ready February 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm

Don't get too upset, Bill. The entire state has a couple thousand people. So it's unlikely anyone in SD will bump into anyone else long enough to get pregnant.

Swampgas_Man February 15, 2011 at 5:09 pm

Legalizing murder of people we don’t like will reduce illegal murders, thus clearing our clogged court-system.

x111e7thst February 15, 2011 at 1:16 pm

What we need is a law that makes the killing of idiot legislators a Praiseworthy Homicide.

ifthethunderdontgetya February 15, 2011 at 1:42 pm

That does it!

I am the 18th stalker on your list.
~

Terry February 15, 2011 at 1:43 pm

Maybe too soon after Tucson.

x111e7thst February 15, 2011 at 2:35 pm

I did hesitate. About (Gh/c5)1/2. Where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, and G is the universal gravitational constant.

problemwithcaring February 15, 2011 at 3:45 pm

I clearly understood you to mean "killing their careers in government", as we all know you can't kill the "undead."

predilectrix February 15, 2011 at 10:19 pm

…with votes!

Swampgas_Man February 15, 2011 at 5:11 pm

You people don't understand; legalizing homicides of people we don't like will reduce ILLEGAL homicides, thus clearing our clogged court-system.

ifthethunderdontgetya February 15, 2011 at 1:17 pm

South Dakota wasn't going to sit around letting Arizona steal the spotlight.

WWJD, emmeffers? Shoot some 'bortion doctors, that's what.

USA! USA! USA!
~

lulzmonger February 16, 2011 at 1:27 am

"I came not to bring peace, but a Glock with an extra-jumbo clip."
"Let he who is without ovaries chamber the first round."
"Suffer the little children to duck & cover."
"Forgive them, Father, for they know not how to operate the bolt-action."

Gorillionaire February 15, 2011 at 1:17 pm

Republicans just want to shoot things, period.

baconzgood February 15, 2011 at 1:41 pm

Ask Dick Cheney.

BeWoot February 15, 2011 at 6:16 pm

Shoot dope, not doctors! (Yes, I am advocating suicide for those people.)

Lascauxcaveman February 15, 2011 at 1:18 pm

Aren't there, like 14 people or so in South Dakota? I just assumed they were all from the same family. You'd think they'd be able to settle their family squabbles without so much gunplay.

V572625694 February 15, 2011 at 1:33 pm

The smart ones left years ago. This is the result.

bumfug February 15, 2011 at 1:18 pm

I'm speechless.

donner_froh February 15, 2011 at 1:18 pm

Murder of human beings in order to "protect" something that might become a human being.

Arizona is still the clear leader of political/social/cultural horror but a lot of states are making their moves. This could put South Dakota among the leaders in states that need to be abolished.

CessnaDriver February 15, 2011 at 1:31 pm

Giving credit where credit is due, a Pima County jury yesterday convicted a minuteklan member of 1st degree murder for killing brown people.

Terry February 15, 2011 at 1:44 pm

The reasonable people in Arizona have to work harder to keep the nutcases off TV and out of office.

kissawookiee February 15, 2011 at 1:49 pm

First Arizona got trumped by Utah having the brilliant idea of having an official state handgun, and now this.

The only thing that will make it better for us, of course, will be Russell Pearce introducing a bill mandating that all abortioning doctors be killed with Glocks sporting at least a 31-round magazine, stamped with "John 3:16, Dubyoo-Tee-Effers!"

DashboardBuddha February 15, 2011 at 2:24 pm

Just wait for the follow up bill that will outlaw masturbation. "Spill your jism? Go to prison!"

horsedreamer_1 February 15, 2011 at 2:53 pm

We didn't start the fire in our pants. It goes Onan, Onan, Onan, Onan…

Swampgas_Man February 15, 2011 at 5:12 pm

I regret I have but one click to give that.

metamarcisf February 15, 2011 at 1:18 pm

This is the same state legislature that, last week, introduced a bill to make it mandatory for all adults to own a gun.

Chet Kincaid February 15, 2011 at 1:33 pm

Link?

Terry February 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm
metamarcisf February 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm
LakeAfflicted February 16, 2011 at 8:53 am

Feds can't make you buy health insurance, but your state leg. can make you buy a gun? At least you don't have to find a place to keep your health insurance when you're not using it.

freakishlywrong February 15, 2011 at 1:18 pm

Holy fuck. If Alice had fallen down the rabbit hole that U.S. fascist America has become, she wouldn't have gotten far. It would be clogged with all the sane people fleeing to Canada.

Radiotherapy February 15, 2011 at 1:25 pm

That's why we have to defend our Northern border.

cheaphits February 15, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Ir is nice here in Toronto, a bit chilly in the winter, but I highly recommend it.

AnAmericanInTO February 15, 2011 at 3:20 pm

As always, I will offer my spare bedroom here in Toronto for those you would like to escape north. You have to be here for 3 months before you get your OHIP health care card so wear a helmet.

emmelemm February 15, 2011 at 3:54 pm

All you have to do to get some Canadianistan health care is hang around three months? I call bullshit.

Unless you're offering to marry us off to Canadian citizens…

Rotundo_ February 15, 2011 at 6:35 pm

Do you think they'd take some of us on as political refugees? Given how fucked up we are getting, I'm thinking we qualify as one of those "rogue regimes" that people used to come from when they came here…

slithytoves February 15, 2011 at 1:18 pm

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.

Yes, but can you kill the woman who wants to have an abortion? For this to be truly the work of republicans, you have to be able to do that. And then you see, she is indicted post mortem for contributing to the death of her fetus.

HolyMaracas February 15, 2011 at 1:20 pm

"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. "

What if the wife/sister/daughter or the husband/brother/father is the same person? After all, this is SOUTH Dakota, isn't it?

Monsieur_Grumpe February 15, 2011 at 1:20 pm

Is this that creeping Sharia law I've hearing about?

Radiotherapy February 15, 2011 at 1:31 pm

Or, if you prefer, call it codifying terrorism.

Chet Kincaid February 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm

Who blabbed about the upcoming "Adulteress was asking for it" amendment to the bill?

Cicada February 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm

Iran allows abortions in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

Yep. South Dakota is more backwards than Iran on this issue.

the_onceler February 15, 2011 at 3:40 pm

Of course, Sharia Law = Christianist Law.

Monsieur_Grumpe February 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm

Is this that creeping Sharia law I've been hearing about?
*English fail*

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 4:48 pm

You were obviously so excited by what was, admittedly, the most excellent of the comments (And one I intend to steal. Thanks.) that you had responses to your post before you got the chance to use "edit." The wonket Golden Rule: proof twice, then post. Lik me.

Monsieur_Grumpe February 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Yeah, sometimes I go all Ralph Wiggum.

Negropolis February 16, 2011 at 1:44 am

Really, shut the thread down. You just won the future, my friend.

ChurchofRealism February 15, 2011 at 1:20 pm

See, honor killings are fine as long as their dressed properly….

Maman February 15, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Any chance we can make stupidity a cause for justifiable homicide?

jim89048 February 15, 2011 at 4:38 pm

I think that one's still on the books down in Texas.

mumbly_joe February 15, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Apparently the taxpayers of South Dakota want to have fewer rights than a bunch of brainless weird little pre-children who float around without contributing anything to society.

But, really, enough about South Dakota's lawmakers.

MittsHairHelmet February 15, 2011 at 1:21 pm

If a fetus hasn't been born, it's not a citizen. If it's not a citizen, its an illegal alien. If it's an illegal alien, it took er jobs. Deport all fetuses!

OneDollarJuana February 15, 2011 at 2:08 pm

But this law would allow justifiable homicide for deportions <sic>.

FNMA February 15, 2011 at 3:32 pm

We need to build a wall at those vaginas.

Lascauxcaveman February 15, 2011 at 1:21 pm

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.

And it gets even more complicated when South Dakota legalizes gay marriage.

That's coming up in their next legislative session, isn't it?

Zvi_Bleindmeis February 15, 2011 at 1:29 pm

The new bill will define Justifiable Homo-cide.

BeWoot February 15, 2011 at 6:23 pm

In Houston that's what the cops used to call gay-on-gay murders, homocides. (Probably still do.) And they called other minority-on-minority homicides misdemeanor murder.

Of course, cops and coroners everywhere are known for their mordant humor.

Lascauxcaveman February 15, 2011 at 7:19 pm

So it's just like on teh teevee! I knew it!

Crank_Tango February 15, 2011 at 1:22 pm

Good news, everyone! Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

OneDollarJuana February 15, 2011 at 2:13 pm

Yes, they are. Remember that the last rounds of truly significant legislation benefiting our society only came after much protesting and rioting. This "new era of civility" will not achieve the desired gains for the 98% of us who aren't fantastically wealthy, as it hasn't in the past.

Crank_Tango February 15, 2011 at 2:38 pm

yeah it is gonna take a while before all the bullshit teabagger destruction really kicks in, then people get sick of that, and the pendulum swings back. We are fucked for what, 20 years?

HistoriCat February 15, 2011 at 3:23 pm

I think someone picked up the pendulum and moved it. Even when it swings in the other direction, we'll be lucky to get back into the 20th century.

lulzmonger February 16, 2011 at 1:34 am

"No comment."
- Pendulum-Bolt-Insertion PAC

"Read the fine print."
- Pendulum Vendors

Gopherit February 15, 2011 at 1:22 pm

It's about time this glaring loophole in the law has been closed. My only question is why didn't AZ think of it first?

Fare la Volpe February 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm

Because they're in favor of Mexican abortions, silly. Pure white fetuses must be kept sacred, though.

neiltheblaze February 15, 2011 at 1:24 pm

There really needs to be a process whereby we can demote a state back to "territory" status if they demonstrate a clear incapacity to govern themselves. Their governors will be appointed until they can convince the other states that they've grown up.

Can we call these people fascists yet? Or does that break the rule that states you've lost the argument if you make a logical correlation?

Chet Kincaid February 15, 2011 at 1:39 pm

I don't know what this legislation has to do with fascism, but your proposal is the best I've seen, much more reasonable than letting asshole states secede!

OneDollarJuana February 15, 2011 at 2:15 pm

I just want to add the requirement that they be able to support themselves, too. Seems like being a red state means having the blue states keep you in the black.

spinozasgod February 15, 2011 at 3:25 pm

I live in Wisconsin….I take it we'd be a territory again…..we did elect a tea party gov. and senator.

horsedreamer_1 February 16, 2011 at 9:42 am

If Ron Johnson (R)* & Scott Walker really want to go Galt, shouldn't they be in the private sector? Why has Scott Walker spent the majority of his adult life in government jobs? Is he evil?

*Randroid.

doloras February 15, 2011 at 3:32 pm

They have that provision in India: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_rul

weejee February 15, 2011 at 1:24 pm

Seems Rep. Phil Jensen want's to deal all abortionators the beloved Deadwood, SD poker hand of aces and 8s ( careful restraint on the right pinkie so none apostrophe).

Maybe Wild Bill Hickcock and Calamity Jane zombies can come and talk some sense into Jensen.

Kidneys4Sale February 15, 2011 at 1:24 pm

If I were a travel agent in South Dakota, I would be advertising package deals to abortion doctors, like, yesterday. CHA-CHING, BITCHES!

HistoriCat February 15, 2011 at 3:24 pm

I'm sure there's a law against helping someone travel to have an abortion.

Kidneys4Sale February 15, 2011 at 4:22 pm

My angle was more towards the "Tourism for Abortionists" side of things, but the "Abortion Tourism" market could be HUGE. Maybe I could route them through Canada to Cuba.

FlownOver February 15, 2011 at 1:25 pm

So would it be okey-dokey for the mistress (no kidding – see the text of the bill) of an abortion provider to run the dickweed who introduced this bill through the wood chipper in order to prevent harm to the doc?

But then, if so, would the legislator's master (Glennda, I'm guessing) be permitted to bludgeon said mistress to death with a handheld chalkboard to protect the…

Aaahhh, this is too complex. Where's that damn pipe?

AngryBlakGuy February 15, 2011 at 1:25 pm

…I thought Rethuglicans were AGAINST Sharia law?!

SorosBot February 15, 2011 at 1:58 pm

Oh no, they support almost everything in it except which fantasy novel should be viewed as holy.

Fare la Volpe February 15, 2011 at 10:54 pm

Hell, it's practically the same damn book. Muslims just have the Extended Edition.

the_onceler February 15, 2011 at 3:42 pm

Only if they are Muslims. If its Christians practicing Sharia Law, that'll be fine.

chascates February 15, 2011 at 1:25 pm

Kill a doctor, save a zygote!

Ducksworthy February 15, 2011 at 3:00 pm

Kill a grown human person, save a blastula.

CapeClod February 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm

It must be pretty trippy, having a brain that rationalizes a bill like this.

EatsBabyDingos February 15, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Easy answer would be to surgically implant teeeeeny litle Glocks in the womb.

And what about the pre-pre-born half babies? Yeah, the tens of kabillions of sperm that are cruelly wasted on the pages of Gunz & Ammo when the little Repugnants go "Oh Ronnie, spurt spurt spurt." Huh? Who will stand up and shrink down for them?
I gets all shrivelly just thinking about it.

prommie February 15, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Hell, this really isn't that far out there, I mean, it is logically consistent with their belief, that a fetus is a person from conception, and hell, even Roe v. Wade says a fetus has rights, only they are outweighed by the mother's rights until the 3rd trimester. So logically, and all, its not that crazy, accepting the premise.

No, the all-time best in crazy laws was the one Alabama enacted after the Supreme Court held you can't ban flag-burning because its protected speech. Alabama made it a defense to a charge of assault nad battery that the victim was burning a flag. Yup, Alabama made it legal to assualt and beat on anyone burning a flag.

Barrelhse February 15, 2011 at 2:56 pm

Jesus Christ, can you even IMAGINE if it was a Confederate flag? LOL

Gunner Asch February 15, 2011 at 3:11 pm

Nad battery? Ouch.

snoopyfan2010 February 15, 2011 at 1:28 pm

The ultimate solution is to make WOMEN less human in the eyes of the law than MEN.

Fixed.

emmelemm February 15, 2011 at 3:57 pm

3/5 maybe? Or are we really only 1/2?

(I just noticed that 3/5 is actually, in fact, more than 50%. How generous of those founding fuckers.)

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 4:36 pm

OT: Misunderstood fact of history. 3/5 was the yankee compromise with the southerners who, for purposes of proportional representation, wanted slaves (or "particular property" as they were defined) to be counted as a whole. That's right. Southerners were such douchebags, they wanted extra representation in congress based on people who had no right to vote because they were fucking owned by another person. Neither side of the debate has anything to be proud of, because it was something on the scale of, "I own a fucking factory, or I farm a hundred acres. Why doesn't my state get extra representation for that, motherfucker?" (I never claimed these were precise quotes).

I think Republithugs, being good Christians, probably want to go back to the Bible's view of women,when they were a man's particular kind of property.

emmelemm February 15, 2011 at 6:08 pm

Ah, yes. It's all coming back to me now. Sorry, 3/5 is kind of a dogwhistle these days.

Disproportionate representation of douchebag states. Today, we call that the Senate.

Rosie_Scenario February 15, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Just as long the rich are able to fly to another state to get an abortion this should be fine.

emmelemm February 15, 2011 at 3:57 pm

Exactamundo. Same as it ever was.

edgydrifter February 15, 2011 at 1:29 pm

I'm going to ask my state rep to introduce a bill allowing us to shoot on sight anyone driving a car with South Dakota plates. They might be baby-killers on the lam, and we just can't take chances now, can we?

Callyson February 15, 2011 at 1:29 pm

This could be horrible…or it could give rise to a creative solution to the wingnut overpopulation problem.
You see, it all depends on what your definition of "abortion" is. Now, if you limit your definition to the medical termination of a pregnancy, done by qualified medical personnel, than this is a problem. But if you define "abortion" as "the sudden desire not to give birth to a child who would have to live in the same world as this nutcase," then wingnuts like Phil Jensen are abortionists…
Let the hunting season begin!

facehead February 15, 2011 at 1:29 pm

Jack, you're not writing for the Onion anymore, stop making up these unbelievably whacky stories!

BZ1 February 15, 2011 at 1:30 pm

The patriots will actually have to go to the airport in Sioux Falls to meet the doctor who has to be flown in off-state, since South Dakota has not had a residing doctor since 1994.

Could this statistic have any connection? Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts.

DerrickWildcat February 15, 2011 at 1:30 pm

They'll just get abortions on the reservations.

zhubajie February 17, 2011 at 6:42 am

Just what I was thinking!

widestanceroman February 15, 2011 at 1:30 pm

So what happens if a pregnant woman helps another woman get an abortion? Can the wanted fetus be sentenced to life in a jar or just be yanked out and paraded through the town on a stick as learnin' for the youngin's?

OneDollarJuana February 15, 2011 at 2:19 pm

This is akin to the grandfather paradox in time travel.

Fare la Volpe February 15, 2011 at 1:32 pm

Next they'll try criminalizing spermogenocide.

nounverb911 February 15, 2011 at 1:54 pm

and condoms

LionelHutzEsq February 15, 2011 at 2:11 pm

What, you are not allowed to shoot anyone that uses birthcontrol? What sort of half-baked, RINO measures are the South Dakota Legisltors trying to adopt?

Barrelhse February 15, 2011 at 2:57 pm

You mean "spitting?"

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Driving home one afternoon, my husband (who was historically squidgy on this issue until he faced having a 5th child when he was nearing 50) and I were listening to that commie radio show "All Things Considered" (thank goodness the Conservtards are going to rid us of that) doing a story on a women's clinic protest. The anti-choice leader, man, of course, finished his rant by condemning birth control.

"They're against birth control?" my shocked husband exclaimed. I explained to the naive lad that scrach any male anti-choice activist very deeply, and you find someone opposed to contraception in any form.

LakeAfflicted February 16, 2011 at 9:01 am

Oddly enough, they're often opposed to court-ordered child support payments too.

MsQuasimodo February 21, 2011 at 2:21 am

Their real underlying agenda IS banning all forms of contraception. Not just abortion. These are vile, nasty, woman-hating, controlling, fascist religious thugs and must be opposed with all due force.

V572625694 February 15, 2011 at 1:33 pm

The smart people left South Dakota years ago. This is the result.

baconzgood February 15, 2011 at 1:38 pm

Pro-Life= Can Murder? What a country.

Fare la Volpe February 15, 2011 at 10:50 pm

You'll notice that their supposed favor of "life" doesn't extend to death row inmates.

Extemporanus February 15, 2011 at 1:43 pm

Aren't South Dakota's precious little gifts from God already protected under the state's concealed carry law?

refudiatedness February 15, 2011 at 1:43 pm

If I am not mistaken, it also opens the door to kill a woman who has a miscarriage. No?

I'll double check–where's my copy of The Handmaid's Tale?

metamarcisf February 15, 2011 at 1:47 pm

Not really; all it does is call for a mandatory gun-shot inflicted suicide in such cases.

LakeAfflicted February 16, 2011 at 9:02 am

Nooooo, you get three chances to pop a good one out.

GeorgiaBurning February 15, 2011 at 1:44 pm

Hmm. Can a judge who writes an opinion against this law be considered as acting to provide abortions, and therefore subject to it? That would be a big gotcha!

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 7:53 pm

I think the Teatards and Hatriots would consider that a double win.

emmelemm February 16, 2011 at 3:42 am

I'm late to the party, and possibly oblivious, but Hatriots is just about the best description ever. Have you been using it previously? Fantastic.

DustBowlBlues February 16, 2011 at 11:55 am

I was reading a musician/neighbor's facebook slam against Faux news when someone was casting about for a name for the tea party people. (I guess she was trying to be nice and not use Teabagger, a term I was tossing about with abandon) and I commented that I just call them Teatards. She liked that and said she often uses Hatriot. Thus, we had a name-for-wingers share moment. BTW–I stole Teatard from wonkette, so it's a double steal. Big get for me!

Chet Kincaid February 15, 2011 at 1:44 pm

I propose a bill allowing me to shoot Jack Stuef if he doesn't start fixing his goddamned typos. "…the hardworking legislators of America’s heartland and working together to get things done for their citizens…" my ass!

cheaphits February 15, 2011 at 1:46 pm

Very seldom do these knucklehead repubitards come up with something original or innovative, but issuing "Licenses to Kill" on practicing physicians is a new wrinkle. Stupid, immoral and sad, but original.

Watch this sweep the brave new world of teabaggery..

DangerHelvetica February 15, 2011 at 1:51 pm

How does that saying go? An eye for an eye makes everything awesome? I think that's it.

keepem_sikanpor February 15, 2011 at 1:53 pm

After I scooped up the brains that exploded out of my head upon completeion of reading this it occurred to me, we're fucked.

GOPCrusher February 15, 2011 at 3:42 pm

The fact that this bill got introduced, makes me concerned for the future of mankind.

Zvi_Bleindmeis February 15, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Womankind, too.

Hera Sent Me February 15, 2011 at 1:54 pm

Maybe Congress should pass a law saying that killing a misogynist farmer who lives on government subsidies lowers his carbon footprint, and therefore entitles the killer to one (1) Cap and Trade credit.

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Excellent. Boom! There go my neighbors. Except the musicians. I wouldn't want the musicians to be shot.

Negropolis February 16, 2011 at 1:52 am

"Cap and Trade"

He-yo!

SorosBot February 15, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Well it's an important step after the spousal notification laws were found unconstitutional thanks to that femiNazi Supreme Court that didn't recognize that once a man has implanted his seed in a woman that growing fetus is his property that the woman's uterus is just incubating.

Won't somebody think of the men?

Ducksworthy February 15, 2011 at 3:29 pm

I think you're pretty close to the truth there. Its the little homunculus that sacred. Not the filth of a woman's womb it's forced to grow in. It was well known in the 11th century that women do not contribute anything to heredity as it true in SD today.

fuflans February 15, 2011 at 1:55 pm

where's al swearengen when you need him?

FNMA February 15, 2011 at 3:52 pm

He has shucked off this mortal fucking coil, leaving these hoopleheads to their own fucking idiotic devices to impose their fucking idiotic ideas of the way the world should fucking conduct its cocksucking business. If Al were around, Woo's pigs would never fucking stop feasting on the bones of these cocksuckers.
Something like that…

nounverb911 February 15, 2011 at 1:56 pm

Keep the land, deport the people. Nevermind, give it back to the Sioux.

Ducksworthy February 15, 2011 at 3:25 pm

Some of them probably prefer to be called LaKota (friends) rather than the Ashkinabe word for enemies. But yes. They were doing a fine job managing the place before these assholes showed up.

JustPixelz February 15, 2011 at 1:58 pm

Hate to go Godwin, but history does have a lesson. As the Nazi's rose to power, judges and prosecutors protected the Brown Shirts from criminal liability. Kill a Communist or a Jew? Slap on the wrist. Punch a Nazi? Death penalty. Disparate justice reinforced a desired political outcome.

rsmuckles February 15, 2011 at 2:01 pm

"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"
so wait, if somebody tries to keep me from beating off in public I can shoot them?

neiltheblaze February 15, 2011 at 2:01 pm

I suppose they couldn't do a worse job than Clarence Thomas.

hagajim February 15, 2011 at 2:09 pm

I guess I can only say that I – like most other Merkans….don't live in that stupid fucking state run by stupid fucking idiots…too damn cold and too damn dumb. SODAKS suck worse than NODAKS….at least today.

ttommyunger February 15, 2011 at 2:11 pm

South Dakota, best known as the place shit lands when North Dakota takes a Hairy One, has spoken again. This Bill, written originally in authentic Frontier Gibberish and only lately translated into English, is the forerunner to the upcoming "Shoot all Niggers and Queers On Sight" Bill soon to be introduced by Governor Hedley Lamarr and passed unanimously by the State House Johnson Family.

undeterredbyreality February 15, 2011 at 5:17 pm

Where da white wimmen at?

ttommyunger February 15, 2011 at 11:28 pm

They damn sure in S.D.

LionelHutzEsq February 15, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Normal Wonkette Libtards. Why don't you mention that the law says as long as the abortion is performed with a gun, then you can't shoot the doctor.

LionelHutzEsq February 15, 2011 at 2:12 pm

And, what happens to your defense if the women miscarries because of her fear after her abortion doctor is shot in front of her?

genxr February 15, 2011 at 3:25 pm

Ummmm… was the shooter pregnant? The law starts to get complicated there.

SorosBot February 15, 2011 at 2:20 pm

It's telling that it's not just the husband but also the parents, and I guess this would even apply for a forty year old woman getting an abortion; they really do want to take us back to the days when women were property, of their father until they married, then of their husbands. It's not about the pwecious widdle fetuses; it's about keeping women "in their place".

Ducksworthy February 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm

Well its a well known fact that wimmens. even SoDak wimmens, has a distinct liberal bias. Comes from cleaning up other people's shit. It makes them opposed to indiscriminate poo flinging.

SorosBot February 15, 2011 at 4:58 pm

Wasn't there some wingnut pundit, a woman in fact, who "jokingly" said the Nineteenth Amendment was a mistake because women tend to vote liberal? Disgusting again.

mumbly_joe February 15, 2011 at 2:28 pm

Guys, I just want to say that it is grossly unfair to compare this to Sharia law.

After all, it's universally accepted that abortion is permissible if the woman's health is in danger, and depending on the school of thought, into the second trimester or in cases of severe congenital defect otherwise, in Islam. In other words, this is absolutely fucking barbaric, compared to Sharia.

natoslug February 15, 2011 at 2:29 pm

It's time for California to build a fence. The rest of you states just fucking suck. Now I have to figure out how to keep Stockton and San Bernardino on the non-Cali side and the stuff I like inside.

aqua_buddha February 15, 2011 at 2:50 pm

This land is our land = NE Corridor, West Coast, Chicago, New Orleans, Hawaii, Miami & Key West.

The Redstate Family Heartland (div of walmart inc): the Midwest, the Southwest, the (former) Slave States, Alaska, and most definitely, Florida.

It will be great, like Gaza plus WestBank minus Settlements plus Wall = peace plan. Easy.

genxr February 15, 2011 at 3:27 pm

Ha, those red state tards would never build settlements here. Property values are just way out of their price range.

aqua_buddha February 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm

And eek, the family values
Every Heather has two Mommies– picture that, pro-lifers…
and they're all muslims.
Run for your lives, lifers !

horsedreamer_1 February 15, 2011 at 4:30 pm

Make Stockton & San Bernardino the Swaziland & Lesotho of California.

DashboardBuddha February 15, 2011 at 2:29 pm

Here's a fun little thought experiment. A father/brother/boyfriend/husband/all of the above (it's SD, natch) tries to kill the abortion doctor. However, the abortion doctor is packing heat (it's SD, natch) AND kills the father/etc first. Is it self defense?

aqua_buddha February 15, 2011 at 2:52 pm

Dashboard, is this the one where the patient looks up and says I can't operate on this doctor, because my son is a woman ..?
Aqua

Barrelhse February 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm

I believe there was a similar case before the court in Wasilla.

FNMA February 15, 2011 at 3:55 pm

I remember that one — The People v. All of 'Em.

HistoriCat February 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm

What if the abortion doctor is pregnant – what then?

DashboardBuddha February 15, 2011 at 6:06 pm

Wow. I hadn't thought of that. That's irony at a level way above my pay grade.

MarcelleMarceau February 15, 2011 at 6:44 pm

I believe that is what they call 'collateral damage'.

Zvi_Bleindmeis February 15, 2011 at 8:12 pm

I call it an attack on the sanctity of miscarriage.

Redhead February 15, 2011 at 2:30 pm

"The ultimate solution is to make adult citizens less human in the eyes of the law than microscopic balls of cells that could potentially grow into a baby."

ball of cells with no brain, heart, heartbeat, or central nervous system, in many many many of the cases. But hey, what's that matter. Republitards don't see women as people anyway. And anyone who would assist them with a medical procedure obviously had it coming, as wimminz don't warrant medical care.

I will say in many places Planned Parenthood won't let ANYONE in the back with the woman having the abortion – wait in the waiting room but don't go back – so they can talk to the woman and make sure it really is her decision, and she's not being threatened or abused or even pressured to do it because someone else wants to. And they're already prepared for the crazy inbred hicks that think violence is the appropriate way to assert their arrogant assumption that they get to make decisions over everyone else's lives. Not that I wish it on PP, but they seem better prepared for this scenario than many places.

At the same time… are you sure this isn't Arizona? Because that level of arrogance, stupidity, disrespect of civil rights and pro-gun-violence seems more in line with Arizona's, well, everything.

SorosBot February 15, 2011 at 2:39 pm

And this is going on at the same time that James O'Keefe protege Lilah Rose is trying to do to Planned Parenthood what he did to ACORN, and the House Republicans are trying to pass a whole bunch of limitations on the right to choose. The forced birthers are making an all-out assault on women's rights right now.

Redhead February 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm

Plus trying to defund any organization (Planned Parenthood is the biggest but there are others) who provide abortions – but not just for the abortions, trying to completely de-fund them of ALL funds, even those that go towards health screenings and helping women get access to birth control – and education about what birth control options exist and how to properly use them.

Plus all this talk about redefining rape to only include a very small percentage of all the actual sexual assaults which take place.

Plus passing legislation about health insurance companies which, with the health insurance reform, will essentially mean that health insurance companies will stop offering abortion coverage – so only those who can afford to pay $400-$900 depending on type of procedure and location can get one. (Because if you can't afford an abortion, I'm SURE you can afford to have a baby. Those Republitards will be more than willing to help with assistance for food and medical bills, right?)

SorosBot February 15, 2011 at 4:56 pm

I'd been wondering how much further these creeps would go, since they know they can't reverse Roe v Wade but are trying to do as much as they can to make it impossible to get an abortion, and South Dakota shows as us this shit. Hopefully no one's going to try to top this, but I fear someone will.

Redhead February 15, 2011 at 5:15 pm

I get the feeling they're heading towards a much higher burden of proof on rape victims – "Prove you're not a slut and you didn't want it and then we'll consider conviction." No specific reason, just a gut feeling that something along those lines is coming next (something more than just changing the definition to mean a stranger in an alley with a gun who puts you in the hospital). As it is, many many rapists take plea deals to spare the victims testifying – because the way they get treated under cross is so horrendous.

Take away a woman's right to say "no" and then take away her decision with what to do with her body after (since pharmacists already have the right to refuse to fill scripts for the morning after pill, which has to be taken within a number of hours to be effective). It's a good way to get them out of the way – don't give them a choice about getting pregnant, don't give them a choice about keeping it. Problem solved.

MinAgain February 15, 2011 at 2:35 pm

Then God announced, "I have just about had it with you people", and soon all that was left of South Dakota was a smoking grease stain and George Washington's chin.

aqua_buddha February 15, 2011 at 2:39 pm

Might be worth getting nostalgic here.
In the old days, long before Roe v Wade –say late fifties or early sixties– you never even heard the word 'abortion'.
In public, in polite conversation, or in the Media. If mentioned, it was in whispers.
Really; in this country.

Maybe that's the way progress might map out for our South Dakotan patriots… Mention the word abortion, and know that you should expect some kind of grisly, violent assault.
Sanctioned by The Law.

SorosBot February 15, 2011 at 2:53 pm

Apropos of nothing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/health/research

Men who abuse women physically and emotionally may also sabotage their partners’ birth control, pressuring them to become pregnant against their will, new reports suggest.

Redhead February 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm

I can see that. Keeps them home, away from outside influences (like family, friends and coworkers) and more easily manipulated. Pressuring a woman to quit her job whether she wants to or not has been one of the warning signs of an abusive relationship for years.

SorosBot February 15, 2011 at 4:50 pm

It's also a way to prevent the woman from leaving the creep, "for the kids". I've known of cases where lied about birth control to get pregnant to try and trap a guy, but hadn't heard about this condom-hole-poking and similar shit before; it's so much worse, seeing as it's trying to force pregnancy.

Redhead February 15, 2011 at 5:06 pm

I've read things (not usually cases, but more the various groups which distribute information about signs the relationship is abusive, etc) that also talk about messing with birth control pills. Hiding them, flushing them, giving the wrong pill, etc. There are also things like antibiotics and certain herbal supplements which can decrease hormonal birth control's effectiveness. You can find this info online, although many women don't actually know it, thanks to overworked doctors who write a script and leave, and abstinence-only education! It's actually pretty easy to sabotage hormonal BC, even to yourself unintentionally.

Ducksworthy February 15, 2011 at 4:40 pm

Apropos of nothing indeed. The Family Violence Prevention Fund has been pushing this idea for some time. If fits the whole sexual coercion lifestyle of our chinless macho culture.

LakeAfflicted February 16, 2011 at 9:55 am

Of course, once she's pregnant, her risk of being just straight-up murdered by her abusive partner skyrockets. The creep thinks getting wifey pregnant is a great idea, but when the pregnancy starts diverting some of her attention away from him, he gets more violent. At that point, she's only got so much time before he convinces himself that the little lady was knocked up by some other guy and goes full-on homicidal.

hoosierkay February 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm

Too bad Phil Jensen and his ilk were not aborted — the world would be a better place. There should be mandatory abortions for all Republicans — STUPID should not be allowed to reproduce!

KochFembot February 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm

Civil War 2 is sounding better all the time.

Barrelhse February 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm

Nothing a good old mung-whack, I always say.

EdFlintstone February 15, 2011 at 3:11 pm

So when does the South Dakota abortion doctor hunting show start on TLC?

OneYieldRegular February 15, 2011 at 3:13 pm

In any civil society, wouldn't *voting* for such a heinous law constitute "an attempt to harm" the unborn? I'm pretty sure it would, which means I might have to reconsider my strong opposition for a moment before coming back to it.

spinozasgod February 15, 2011 at 3:33 pm

lucky for them there is no shortage of stones up there….a shortage of sanity, yes, but no shortage of stones…..

barbluther February 15, 2011 at 3:33 pm

Sharia law arrives – the male relative can kill anyone who interferes with any woman over whom he has power.

GOPCrusher February 15, 2011 at 3:45 pm

It's hard to be Pro-Life if you're not willing to kill to prove it.

GOPCrusher February 15, 2011 at 3:46 pm

OT
But I see the wingnuts are starting up the call to have Raygun added to Mt. Rushmore again.

MarcelleMarceau February 15, 2011 at 6:49 pm

Flag burning amendment soon to follow.

phlox✔ February 15, 2011 at 4:24 pm

Having 'South' as part of their state's name has clearly gone to their heads.

Ducksworthy February 15, 2011 at 4:41 pm

If they had any sense they would sell licenses and issue tags for the abortion doctor season and raise some needed cash.

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 6:32 pm

Oh what a wonderful combination of current news stories. First of the comments that made me laugh out loud. Thanks.

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 4:57 pm

I cannot imagine how jealous the OK lege Republics are going to be when they hear about this from Focus on the Family, or whatever shit they read. All that great attention we got when Rex Duncan (R-My fucking district)proposed the Sharia Law law is fading while AZ and SD crazy is in the ascendency.

GOPCrusher February 15, 2011 at 5:05 pm

According to the article, an attempt to make abortion illegal was rejected by South Dakota voters, twice by 12 percent.
So, if the voters have already spoken, I can only assume that this is another example of government intrusion into the rights of individuals.
Right? Right?

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 6:07 pm

Wrong. Everyone knows individual rights only pertain to my right not to contribute to society in any way, and that includes the right not to pay anything in taxes, ever. That's what Daniel Boone intended when he signed the Declaration of Independence. Don't you know anything?

undeterredbyreality February 15, 2011 at 5:12 pm

How many roads can a man walk down before he realizes he's somehow wound up in a post-rational pre-humanitarian insane-infested bizarro world where nobody who makes any sense whatsoever can get any traction at all and the end of the world is at hand solely because the 'tards who think the end of the world is at hand are going to bring it on by their own stupid actions–intentionally–because they just can't stand the idea that their fundamentalist god-myth, which has only gotten stupider in the last two centuries and is no longer understood or interpreted by them at all, let alone even as liberally as the medieval inquisitors understood and interpreted it, has finally been seen for what it is and so war has to be declared on all the other fundamentalist 'tards who have different god-myths, but more importantly on all rational, sane human beings who recognize the god-myths as just that, so they can maintain their hold on the weak and the stupider-than-them and anybody else who happens to walk down their road?

KochFembot February 15, 2011 at 5:46 pm

These are the questions I am constantly asking, which is why my facial expression runs the entire gamut of depressed / nervous / angry on a daily basis now. Their bullshit ends on 5/21/11, right?

undeterredbyreality February 15, 2011 at 6:21 pm

I wish. They'll just recalculate. If only they would be raptured. Or rapture themselves. Jim Jones had the right idea.

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 6:04 pm

Are you Jefferson reincarnated? I don't mean the sitcom Jeffersons.

undeterredbyreality February 15, 2011 at 6:21 pm

Weezy? Is that you?

yyyaz February 15, 2011 at 8:05 pm

How many roads you got? A page right out of my play book. I have given up hope of living long enough to see even a tiny shift in the direction of the pendulum toward rational governance.

LakeAfflicted February 16, 2011 at 9:58 am

The answer, my friend, is sitting in the South Dakota state legislature.

lochnessmonster February 15, 2011 at 5:19 pm

Men should not be allowed to write any law regarding a woman's reproductive rights until they can bear children themselves. Throw in a few rapes and some incest and then .they can tell me what I can or can't do with my body. Keep out of my doctor's office!

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 6:31 pm

It's really no man's business. As I've harped on many times, I'm one of those many married women with children who got pregnant because birth control options suck. According to these wingnuts, four weeks worth of mucous was more important than the lives of the other 6 people in our family.

If abortion is outlawed again, expect the number of D and Cs to go up drastically, at least for those women who have insurance or can otherwise afford their legal abortions. As for the poor women: make sure you sterilize that coat hanger and try not to puncture your bowel.

mavenmaven February 15, 2011 at 5:26 pm

'Merka is the new Cambodia!
"The people on the Khmer Rouge death list were the group called the city people… The intellectuals, the doctors, the lawyers, the monks, the teachers, and the civil servants"

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/p/pran-cambodi

DustBowlBlues February 15, 2011 at 5:58 pm

Pinheads, as I believe they are known in the parlance of Sean O'Rushbeck. (I'm working on how to slip Savage into that.)

imissopus February 15, 2011 at 7:36 pm

As someone upthread mentioned, SD hasn't even had a resident doctor who could perform abortions since around 1994. Currently, Planned Parenthood, when not too busy running underage prostitution rings, flies one in once a week. I can't imagine he/she will be thrilled about even making that trip if this bill passes.

Would Canada like to annex the Dakotas? I for one would be in favor of it.

GeorgiaPeachy February 15, 2011 at 8:01 pm

This guy gave one good (?) example. He said if a guy who didn't want to pay child support kicked a woman in the stomach, he could be guilty of murder.

Well, I would definitely agree that anyone who give a woman an abortion against her will is probably a real bad guy.

SorosBot February 15, 2011 at 10:11 pm

A guy like Tom DeLay or Jack Abramoff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mariana_Isl

GregComlish February 15, 2011 at 8:31 pm

"Stop Aborting Yourself! *smack* Stop Aborting Yourself!"

HempDogbane February 15, 2011 at 10:09 pm

On one of Exene Cervenka's albums she had a spoken word piece about natives sitting behind Mount Rushmore plotting to blow it into gravel. Maybe should sit behind the capitol in Pierre instead.

Fare la Volpe February 15, 2011 at 10:56 pm

Pop a Doc in South Dakot.

mourningnmerica February 16, 2011 at 1:18 am

Kids, we are approaching some really freaky shit. I feel like we are about the point on our journey, similar to Crystal Night in Germany. We are starting to see insanity, not rebutted by the forces of reason.

Negropolis February 16, 2011 at 1:37 am

Honestly, is this some kind of official crazy-off where each state in the Union chooses their most offensive legislation to see who "wins?" This shit used to be kind of confined to the South and interior west, but it's like every state sent in their entry, this year.

zhubajie February 17, 2011 at 6:47 am

I always suspected Dakota Territory was split in two so that the party in power could get 4 more senators instead of 2.

Negropolis February 16, 2011 at 1:42 am

Why do we need a South Dakota, anyway? Can't we just merge it with North Dakota and call it Regular Dakota?

Truly, these are the Badlands.

inedalo February 16, 2011 at 8:31 am

if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

LakeAfflicted February 16, 2011 at 10:14 am

Not familiar with SD's current justifiable homicide statute, but most of them require the defendant's objectively reasonable belief that the killing was necessary to protect another from an immediate threat of death or serious injury at the hands of the victim. As yet unresolved: what is "reasonable" by South Dakota standards, and do those standards even contemplate a principle like objectivity?

LocalGirlMakesGoo February 18, 2011 at 12:15 pm

I never thought I'd say this, but maybe it's time for the doctors of South Dakota who perform abortions to "go Galt."

Also, why do women still live in South Dakota?

MsQuasimodo February 21, 2011 at 2:24 am

We can adopt the Muslim "honor killing" of female relatives who we imagine violate our imaginary moral code. Why stop at killing abortion providers? Let's kill the women themselves, who dare use birth control, dress "provocatively," look at a man who is not her husband, learn to read, refuse marriage, sleep with women — let alone those who get an abortion.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: