Abortion bill tabled

That bill that was worded as to legalize the murder of abortion doctors has come up against too much protest and has thus been tabled.

By a vote of 61 to 4, the legislators agreed to “table” the bill, known as HB 1171. The proposed law would have expanded the definition of justifiable homicide to include killing by a family member “in the lawful defense of … his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person.”

By tabling the bill, the legislators merely agreed to set aside for future consideration. But it is a parliamentary procedure that typically ends discussion of the proposal for the current legislative session.

The bill was introduced in late January by Phil Jensen, a Republican legislator from Rapid City, and is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation. Jensen was one of the lawmakers to vote to table the proposal but three of the bill’s other supporters opposed the action.

In the interest of continuing the discussion from my original post on the matter, I include this:

Many states have laws that permit individuals to protect others with deadly force. But Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based pro-choice group that has been tracking state abortion laws since the early 1970s, said the proposed law was the first of its kind that could be construed to provide legal protection for committing murder in order to prevent conduct likely to result in the death of an embryo or fetus.

In summary: the bill would have put the defense of a fetus on the same level as the defense of one’s father or child.

It’s okay to kill abortion doctors

Or at least that’s the idea some Republicans in South Dakota want to pass into law.

The bill, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, was introduced in late January by Phil Jensen, a Republican legislator from Rapid City.

If passed, it would provide protection to a family member who kills “in the lawful defense of … his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person” by defining the killing as a justifiable homicide.

Emphasis mine.

I hope this bill is destined to be aborted itself, but South Dakota is pretty fanatical about the whole issue. Fortunately, the wording makes it a moot issue since federal law trumps state in these matters and, well, it isn’t exactly legal to allow murder.

Of course, the whole purpose of this part of the bill is being spun a different way.

Jensen insisted the bill “has nothing to do with abortion” and would merely bar prosecutors from pressing charges against a family member who kills an assailant attacking a pregnant relative.

“Let’s say an ex-boyfriend finds out his ex-girlfriend is pregnant with his baby and decides to beat on her abdomen to kill the unborn child,” Jensen said. “This is an illegal act and the purpose of this bill is to bring continuity to South Dakota code as it relates to the unborn child.”

Too bad that isn’t what the bill actually says, huh?

The way Jensen is trying to frame the bill wouldn’t make it unique. Other states have given or sought to give protections to the fetuses of pregnant women. And to an extent I agree with them. We give police, federal agents, and elected politicians more protection under the law in many cases. The reason is because they hold a special place in society. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say expectant mothers hold a special place as well. Of course, the motivation for those bills is always to protect the “unborn child”, not the actual human being, but the result is a good one, I think; I accept it on pragmatic grounds.

It’s just unfortunate that the results of Jensen’s crappy bill would be the legalization of murder in South Dakota. That isn’t very pragmatic.

New header options

Here are some of my thoughts on a suitable new header image. These pictures aren’t finalists or anything; I’m still open to suggestion.

Kilimanjaro in the morning

Kilimanjaro glacier

Kilimanjaro sunrise


Part of the decision will rest upon what image best lends itself to the dimensions of the header.

Don’t ask, get told on

A gay soldier in Kansas has been given the boot because she got legally married in Iowa.

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old’s honorable discharge under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

The Bigot Brigade PD basically ratted Newsome out because she wouldn’t cooperate with helping them find her spouse on an outstanding warrant. The BBPD claims they were running a proper investigation, but that’s an incredibly thin lie. They had no business reporting anything to the military. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome’s home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.

“It’s an emotional issue and it’s unfortunate that Newsome lost her job, but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the license, or not document the license, or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it,” Allender said Saturday. “It was a part of the case, part of the report and the Air Force was privileged to the information.”

Steve Allender (adminInt3@rcgov.org) is a liar. The marital status of a third party in their investigation is irrelevant. It doesn’t take some half-ass cop out in the boonies to see that.

“This information was intentionally turned over because of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and to out Jene so that she would lose her military status,” said Robert Doody, executive director of ACLU South Dakota. The ACLU is focusing its complaint on the police department, not the military, and Newsome said she and her attorney have not yet decided on whether to file a lawsuit.

“The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ piece is important and critical to this, but also it’s a police misconduct case,” Doody said.

The BBPD has no idea what is appropriate action. It’s a department full of petty and vengeance to the citizen who crosses them, evidently. They should have had no expectation that a third party would help them with their investigation – but they did. They precisely expected Newsome to cow-tow to their demands to make their jobs easier. When she didn’t, they sought to ruin her career.

Of course, what would be an obvious case of bigotry without the overt bigotry?

Despite claiming that she had played by the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rules, she got married to her lesbian lover in Iowa after an activist state supreme court said she could.

Well, that was tell number one. A marriage license, Ms. Newsome, is a public record. If you want to keep your sexual preference hidden from your superiors, it’s best not to advertise it to the whole world.

This is from some dying dinosaur named Bryan Fischer. Apparently Fischer thinks gays want to keep who they are private. No, no, really. People just love faking it.

Second, when the police came to her home seeking to execute an arrest warrant on her lesbian “wife” (“husband?” — it’s hard to know these days), they found the wedding license lying right in the middle of the dining room table. If you want to keep your sexual preference a secret, there are better ways.

For instance, one could hide a marriage license behind a smarmy aura of asshole. To date, no one has been able to confirm Fischer’s marital status.

Rapid City, S.D. law enforcement officials saw the wedding license and did their legal duty by reporting what they had found to the military.

What law is that again?

Ms. Newsome received an “honorable discharge” in January. (This is not your father’s military: she committed what is a crime under the UCMJ, and has the word “honorable” on her discharge papers. Go figure.)

There must be a mistake on Fischer’s website. It says he’s from Idaho, not Uganda.

Newsome’s partner in sexual deviancy is apparently not a model citizen, currently being under indictment for one felony and three misdemeanor counts of theft. That’s another tip for Ms. Newsome — if you don’t want get outed, it might be best not to “marry” somebody who robs people.

Do donation baskets count as robbery since they purport to be used for good causes but instead continue to support religion?

Gates’ theory — you get to break the law as long as you don’t rat yourself out — is absurd. Imagine if we applied that to any other realm of law enforcement. You, sir, get to go right on holding up banks because all we have to go on is ironclad eyewitness testimony from tellers, managers and other bank patrons. Please, please, pretty please admit you did it so we can lock you up. Otherwise, we will be forced to let you go so you can rob and pillage some more.

Idaho simply must be a mistake.


This is the guy currently in the header of this blog. It’s a 35 million year old oreodont fossil found in the South Dakota Badlands.