Baby killers
by digby
This is not a joke:
He didn't just come up with this nnsense after drinking too much moonshine.
It's out there:
No seriously. This is from an earlier attempt in South Dakota to make fetal "self-defense" legal:
Supporters say it will protect unborn children from violence. Opponents say it legalizes murdering abortion providers. One thing's for certain: House Bill 1171 has stirred up a hornet's nest of controversy.
Supporters of the bill's intent say it's about protecting fetuses from assaults.
"This is a bill that will provide self-defense for the unborn child," said Rep. Phil Jensen, R-Rapid City, the bill's prime sponsor.
It didn't pass. And it was unusual in that most of these sorts of "fetal protection" bills are applied to the woman inside whom the fetus lives --- they law considers the assault is against her. This proposal eliminated the pesky middle (wo) man. But then, who the cares about her? After all, these people are hard pressed to even allow an abortion where the mother will die otherwise. Their priorities are quite clear.
They are currently trying to create a fetal "personhood" status which I assume would mean they'd be imbued with 2nd Amendment rights. (It's unknown if they can actually handle guns what with the undeveloped body and brain and all, but that's no reason they should be denied their constitutional rights.) But I wonder if they would believe in the death penalty for fetuses that are found guilty of murdering their mothers? Or would it be enough that they "feel threatened" and decide to "stand their ground" (as if they have a choice in the matter since they cannot survive outside their mother's body.) What an interesting ethical dilemma. Someone should ask Steve Stockman. I'm sure he's thought it all through.
.
.
