Copyright © 2009 - 2010 Mark and Susan Archer

All personal posts and comments formulated by Susan Archer, may not in any way, shape, or form, be copied, reproduced, transmitted, or otherwise taken from this blog, without the explicit written and approved request for permission by Susan Archer.

2/15/11

South Dakota GOP pushes bill to legalize ‘homicide’ in defense of the unborn By Stephen C. Webster Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

South Dakota GOP pushes bill to legalize ‘homicide’ in defense of the unborn

By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

"Justifiable" homicide is usually claimed in self defense cases, and in particular home invasions that end up with a dead burglar. You could say it's one of the many things that's big in Texas.

But in South Dakota, a group of Republican state legislators have crafted a bill that would expand the legal definition of "justifiable homicide" in a way that's plain and unambiguous: they're trying to legalize the murder of abortion doctors.

In House Bill 1171, which cleared committee recently and will go to a full vote by the legislature soon, their redefinition is clear.

It states: "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is."

It was enough to draw out a feature story from Mother Jones, which noted that along with the principle sponsor, state Rep. Phil Jensen, 22 other state representatives and four state senators were also attached to the text.

Despite appearances, Jensen was not the author of language redefining "justifiable" homicide. The legislature's website noted that the bill had been "extensively amended (hoghoused) and may no longer be consistent with the original intention of the sponsor."

But in a hearing last week, "[a] parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law," Mother Jones's Kate Sheppard wrote.

Doctors and clinics that provide reproductive health services have in the past been targeted by conservative extremists. The most recent high-profile assassination, against Dr. George Tiller, happened in May 2009. He was shot in his church, in Wichita, by a man named Scott Roeder.

Tiller was one of the nation's only providers of later-term abortions, which remains a rare and legally restricted procedure. He was also a frequent target of Fox News conservative opinion host Bill O'Reilly, who'd for years referred to Tiller on his show as "Tiller the baby killer."

Roeder was sentenced to life in prison and has since developed a cult following among some extremists online. Though he was said to have been a "lone wolf" -style gunman, his connections to the pro-life movement became abundantly clear.

And today, it seems, from at least one sector of the South Dakota legislature, the message is that the law should make exception for men of his ilk.

There is only one clinic in the state that offers abortion services.

Proposed South Dakota abortion law stirs controversy Reuters

Proposed South Dakota abortion law stirs controversy
Reuters

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) – South Dakota will debate a proposed law on Tuesday that supporters say would protect pregnant women from attack and critics fear could legalize the killing of abortion providers in the state.

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.

The bill is expected to come up for debate on the floor of the South Dakota House of Representatives on Tuesday afternoon and Jensen said he is expecting amendments from opponents.

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.

"We have not seen anything like this before," Nash said. "It's really chilling."

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."

But Alisha Sedor, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, a group that supports a woman's right to abortion, said she was worried the legislation could trigger attacks on abortion providers if it was not amended.

"I don't believe the intent is malicious," Sedor said. "But the potential legal implications of the bill are what make it dangerous. If it passes without an amendment exempting attacks on providers, it could incite violence from individuals who believe their actions will be found justifiable in court."

South Dakota has been at the center of some of the most bitter recent fights between supporters and opponents of abortion, which was legalized in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

In both 2006 and 2008, state legislators passed laws banning most abortions unless they were necessary to save a woman's life. In both cases, the laws were subsequently overturned by the state's voters at the polls.

(Reporting by Ann Nachtigal in Sioux Falls and James Kelleher in Chicago; writing by James B. Kelleher in Chicago; Editing by Greg McCune)

2/14/11

In Cold Blood: PW Talks with Stephen Singular By Jordan Foster Feb 14, 2011

In Cold Blood: PW Talks with Stephen Singular
By Jordan Foster
Feb 14, 2011

Stephen Singular, author of The Wichita Divide, discusses the killing of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller and the recent Tucson shooting.

What inspired you to write about the rise of domestic terrorism within the antiabortion movement?

Twenty-five years ago I wrote about [Denver radio] talk show host Alan Berg's murder in Talked to Death. The Berg assassination was domestic terrorism because it carried out a racial and religious agenda. There are similarities [with the Tiller case], but I was more interested in the differences. For years I'd wanted to write a sequel to Talked to Death, but the time wasn't right. Then Dr. Tiller was killed. Sometimes a single crime can illuminate an entire war that a nation has been fighting. This was that crime. I didn't want to write the history of abortion in America or a book that simply laid out the two sides of the debate. My book weaves together Dr. Tiller's career and the evolution of [his murderer] Scott Roeder from a seemingly normal Middle American into a domestic terrorist. But to me the heart of the book is Lindsey Roeder, Scott's ex-wife, who watched in horror as he changed, but couldn't help him. Every story needs someone to root for, and for me, that's Lindsey.

You pinpoint the media as "amplifier[s] for the emotional forces building in the society." How have these outlets helped perpetuate the culture of hate?

The point I want to re-emphasize is that the uncertainty and fear that people feel are real. But these are largely personal emotions and it's the individual's responsibility to manage them. The talk shows and Internet groups have essentially stood this equation on its head. "Here are the issues," they loudly repeat, "and here are the people to blame for what you're feeling. If abortion makes you uncomfortable, hate Dr. Tiller." Terrorists call this "target identification." Hating people in public has been the prevailing emotional atmosphere in our country for the past 15 years. Virtually no one in the mainstream supported the cause of the men who murdered Berg. But in 2009, figures as prominent as Bill O'Reilly had no compunction about demonizing Dr. Tiller, repeatedly calling him "Tiller the baby killer."

What similarities do you see between Dr. Tiller's murder and the recent shooting in Tucson, Ariz.?

The biggest similarity, which I first wrote about in Talked to Death, is that these killers had significant psychiatric problems. When those in positions of authority preach the hatred of groups or individuals, this will filter down to everyone else, including the unstable. We like to call it "random violence," but repeatedly demonize and identify a target, and bloodshed will usually erupt. Berg's killer, Scott Roeder, and Jared Loughner of Tucson were all troubled people who lived within an environment of mistrust, if not paranoia. All chose their victims based on the belief that killing was the best way to solve a political or social problem, and then all opened fire.

2/12/11

The Turning Tide on Women’s Rights & Abortion - Blog of Author Stephen Singular and Joyce Jacques Singular

The Turning Tide on Women’s Rights & Abortion

If you were the kind of person who believed in conspiracies, you might see the outlines of one in what follows. On May 31, 2009, the radical Kansas anti-abortionist Scott Roeder walked into Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita and gunned down George Tiller in the foyer, just as the Sunday service was about to start. Dr. Tiller was America’s best-known and most-hated abortion provider (my book about his assassination and the unfolding civil war in our country, The Wichita Divide, will be published in two months). In the immediate aftermath of the murder, anti-abortion groups, politicians, and individuals rushed forward, as they always do in these circumstances, and decried this violent act. No one wanted to say that by killing Dr. Tiller, Roeder had eliminated abortion not just in Wichita and Kansas, but had removed this option for the thousands of women who’d come to his clinic from other states seeking his advice and care. Roeder had effectively lowered the number of abortions in one swath of the country. Other people, who are rarely described as “radical,” were about to intensify their own strategies for accomplishing the same goal -- from coast to coast.

In 2010, state legislatures introduced more than 600 measures to limit access to abortion and 34 of them passed. The 2010 election saw 45 new anti-abortionists win seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Twenty-nine governors are now strongly anti-abortion, eight more than before the mid-term election. Fifteen states currently have both anti-abortion legislatures and governors, up five from last year. Many of the newly-victorious politicians support laws that require doctors to read material to their abortion patients about fetal development, to show them ultrasound images, and to impose mandatory waiting periods. According to Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), the House is “more pro-life than it’s ever been.”

The new Congress promised to work on improving the economy, so naturally they’re doing this by targeting abortion and trying to undermine the Obama Administration’s health care reform legislation. Under the umbrella of saving money, the Republican majority in the House is considering the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which would abolish tax breaks for private employers who provide health coverage offering abortion services. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-New Jersey), would disallow tax credits encouraging small businesses to provide insurance for their workers to buy policies that cover abortions. Many, if not a majority, of employer-sponsored insurance plans do just this. People with their own policies who have enough expenses to claim an income tax deduction could not deduct either the premiums for policies that cover abortion or the cost of an abortion. These restraints go far beyond current law opposing federal money for abortions. The Smith bill would provide federal financing of abortions in cases of “forcible” rape, but not statutory or coerced rape or incest involving those who are not minors. Smith’s office has not yet defined what “forcible rape” actually means.

Another new bill, the “Protect Life Act” sponsored by Rep. Pitts, would prohibit Americans receiving insurance through the new state exchanges from purchasing abortion coverage, even with their own money. And it would allow hospitals to refuse women abortions, even in emergencies, if such care would offend the conscience of the health care providers. The obvious irony is that so many of these politicians have run or positioned themselves as Small Government Conservatives. But when it comes to abortion, they’re all in favor of expanding the feds’ role in the most private area of individual lives.

The above are just a couple of the fronts in the emerging battle. Under current Supreme Court precedent, the government doesn’t bar abortions prior to the point of “viability”: around 22 to 26 weeks after conception. Last year, Nebraska enacted a law directly challenging this standard and the state now bans abortions 20 weeks after conception. The statute includes a very narrow exception for preserving a woman’s physical health or life, but not for severe fetal anomalies. Similar laws are now pending in other states. The end game in all this new legislation, the pro-choice side feels, is to provide the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ammunition to challenge or overturn Roe v. Wade.

For years Dr. LeRoy Carhart traveled to Wichita each month to assist Dr. Tiller at his clinic. Following Tiller’s death, Carhart expanded his own abortion practice in Nebraska, but after last year’s passage of a more restrictive law in the Cornhusker state, Dr. Carhart resettled on the East Coast. Kansas is considering passing a similar law, even though its one abortion doctor is now deceased. With tightening laws and rising sentiment against pro-choice, 87% of American counties have no abortion provider. Because of this and other factors, Planned Parenthood and its hundreds of health centers have played an increasingly significant role in aiding millions of pregnant women, poor and otherwise. The organization offers 1.85 million low-income women family-planning counseling and screening for sexually-transmitted diseases, diabetes, and a variety of cancers; no other group offers this comprehensive care to women on a national level. Planned Parenthood does not receive taxpayer money for abortions, but does fund its own abortion services, so it too has come under attack.

“What is more fiscally responsible,” U.S. Representative Mike Pence of Indiana recently asked his colleagues, “than denying any and all funding to Planned Parenthood of America?”

Rep. Pence has 154 co-sponsors for a bill to prevent the federal government from funding not just Planned Parenthood, but every clinic that provide abortions. Using a more guerilla-like approach, something called “Live Action” has been running a sting operation on Planned Parenthood clinics in six states, trying to connect the staff to child prostitution.

In response to the new proposed legislation, Democrats are trying to fight back, but on the defensive in this new environment.

“We are sending a clear message to House Republicans that their agenda on women’s health is extreme,” said Senator Barbara Boxer of California. “It breaks faith with a decades-long bipartisan compromise, and it risks the health and lives of women. It also punishes women and businesses with a tax hike if they wish to keep or buy insurance that covers a full range of reproductive health care.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) has called the latest round of anti-abortion activities the biggest assault women’s rights “in our lifetime.”

Dr. Tiller’s murder seems to have unleashed an entirely new wave of energy for the anti-abortion movement to change laws, shut down woman’s health services, and restrict or prevent abortions. Nothing has been the same since Roeder took the physician’s life.