Of all the lies and half-truths used by the pro-choice movement, few have been as blatant as the rumor going around the Internet that a bill in South Dakota will make it legal to murder abortion providers. Mother Jones published an article with the title “South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers.”
The article, which can be found here says, among other things:
“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.”
Other pro-choice leaders have weighed in on this bill as well. For example Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers, stated “The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers.”
According to Saporta and other pro-choice activists, this bill legalizes murder of abortion providers by anyone — a crazed pro-life fanatic, an angry boyfriend, or anyone else.
Let’s take a look at what the bill actually says.
The complete text of the bill, HB117I, can be found here.
In order to avoid confusion, or any accusation of selective editing, I will reproduce the entire text of the bill.
This is what the bill says:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for
the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain crimes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for homicide as defined in 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 or assault as defined in 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 that the defendant is a pregnant woman who used force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if:
(1) Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she would be justified under 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child; and
(2) She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.
Section 2. The affirmative defense provided in section 1 of this Act does not apply to:
(1)Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;
(2) Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense. However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the complete safety of her unborn child; or
(3) The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body
Emphasis mine
That is the entire bill. That is what is making the abortion advocates so upset. The bill clearly states, in plain, simple language, that only the pregnant woman would be allowed to use force. Not an antiabortion activist. Not an angry boyfriend or husband. The woman. No one else.
Ironically, this bill is not directly about abortion at all. Rather, it is to allow pregnant women to engage in force to protect herself and her unborn baby. Under current South Dakota law, a pregnant women may defend herself with force if an attacker is trying to kill her. But if the attacker merely wants to make her miscarry — if she is the victim of an angry boyfriend or husband who is trying to kick her in the stomach and kill her baby, she does not have the legal right to resist with force. This law would allow the woman to defend herself even if her own life is not in danger. It is about protecting the woman and her wanted pregnancy.
It is ironic that the pro-choice movement is fighting so hard against the rights of women who want to be pregnant to keep their children safe. Pro-choice is supposed to be about giving women choices — the choice to have an abortion, or the choice to have a baby. Yet the pro-choice community is up in arms about a bill that would protect a woman’s right to have her baby despite interference by anyone else- usually men.
There is a reason for this bill. There is an epidemic of violence in this country aimed at pregnant women. There have been multiple cases of murder by men who are angry at a woman for being pregnant and want her to have an abortion. Often, when a woman refuses an abortion against her boyfriend or husband’s wishes, threatening him with years of child support, the husband or boyfriend turns violent and either tries to abort the child himself, or actually tries to eliminate the problem by killing the woman. Most people are not aware of how extensive this problem is. in fact, murder is the leading cause of death among pregnant women in this country.(1)
Here is one example from South Carolina:
South Carolina Man Arrested: Beat Pregnant Girlfriend, Killed Baby
Rather than legalize killing abortion providers, this bill would protect women and their wanted pregnancies. The leap of logic taken by pro-choice groups to apply this bill, which clearly and in simple terms states that only the pregnant woman may use force, violent antiabortion extremists killing doctors is staggering.
Footnotes
1.I.L. Horton and D. Cheng, “Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality-Maryland, 1993-1998,” JAMA 285(11): 1455-1459 (2001); see also J. Mcfarlane et. al., “Abuse During Pregnancy and Femicide: Urgent Implications for Women’s Health,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 100: 27-36 (2002).
Share on Facebook