What the worst part about murdering an abortion doctor? Hard to say, but it's probably the part about how you have to go to jail afterward. So annoying!
Luckily, though, that shouldn't be a problem in South Dakota for much longer…
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.
Hard to imagine how a bill that makes it legal to kill people for legally doing their job could ever pass any legislative body. Even in a Dakota. And if it does pass, I can't imagine how it could possibly make it through any court of law.
But, if it does pass, it should open up a world of possibilities for legalizing the killing of people in other professions that annoy us. Watch your back, intercom guy who keeps telling me that Borders is getting ready to close in 15 minutes.
Tags: Abortion, Crime, South Dakota
I don't know about you, but there are few things in the world that make me feel more safe and at ease than the notion of a fully armed Dakota…
A group of South Dakota lawmakers have introduced a bill mandating that every citizen in their state over the age of 21 purchase a firearm, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reports.
Under the bill, the firearm would reportedly have to be "sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense" and residents would have six months to buy one after the law takes effect. The only people exempted would be those legally prohibited from owning a firearm.
This is kind of crazy, isn't it? I mean, what percentage of South Dakota's residents even recognize state law? I think last I read, 70 percent of citizens believed their home and front yard constituted autonomous nation-states of which they were unquestioned potentates. The government knows better than to try to force those people to buy a gun. They'll get their heads blown off.
If this sounds too crazy to be true, it is — sort of. The lawmakers told the Argus Leader they know the bill won't pass and introduced it only to make a point related to the individual mandate in last year's sweeping health care reform law. The mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, requires that all Americans purchase health insurance or pay a fine.
Oh! It's about health care reform! Very clever, South Dakota. Very clever indeed.
And just as mandated heath care would theoretically cut down on cut down on tax payers' expense by lifting the burden of the government to cover uninsured emergency room visits, mandated gun ownership would theoretically cut down on tax payers' expense by lifting the burden of the government to pay for a police force. We can just go back to frontier days justice.
Plus, we can also go back to frontier day medicine and just shoot all the sick people.
Tags: Guns, Health Care, South Dakota
Arizona's recent bid to lead as America's biggest racial profiler has already received backing from Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, and the Northern Mariana Islands, among others. But now seven of Mexico's fellow Latin American countries have followed its lead with motions in supports of lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law SP1070…
Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico's legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups….
Mexico says the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade, tourism and the fight against drug trafficking.
You know what that means, don't you? It's time for Migration Madness, the tournament in which political entities slug it out in the headlines for the title — no, the legal right, actually — to have or not have Constitutionally unsound racial profiling implemented within the United States.
And, no that we know which governing bodies have qualified, we can finally draw up the tournament seedings, which are based upon several factors, including country ranking, win-loss war record, ethnicity, and whether or not I think a country had a funny name. Continue after the jump to see how it shakes out…
Tags: Alabama, Arizona, Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Florida, Guatemala, Immigration, Michigan, Mike Cox, Nebraska, Nicaragua, Northern Mariana Islands, Paraguay, Pennsylvania, Peru, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia
It appears as though Michigan is leading the charge against not supporting Arizona in its time of race-baiting need…
States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.
Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.
I'm just really happy to see that The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands , where non-native islanders are not allowed to own land, have decided to take a stand and support Arizona. I had almost forgotten they existed.
Tags: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Immigration, Michigan, Mike Cox, Nebraska, Northern Mariana Islands, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia