That is what it was originally intended for, absolutely. But some adding this kind of specific language is dangerous to say the least. The anti-choice groups who have pushed for this are not thinking of this as an endpoint but just another hammer fall on the social wedge. I don't quite agree with you that this isn't going to have farther reaching implications.

I completely agree with you on this. I'm not one to sit idly by, waiting for someone else to defend me and the people I care about. I would do the same!

I just think this law, by looking at the groups pushing hard for this language, isn't just intended for purely self-defense situations and is being used for more long term, and political, purposes and THAT'S what I find scary about it.

 I did a little bit more research on SD law and discovered that the change to include unborn child is in fact rather necessary in a case where a pregnant woman was being assaulted in a manner which threatened the fetus but not her. In Wiersma v. Maple Leaf Farms a pregnant woman was suing Maple Leaf Farms for negligence that led to her having a miscarriage. Because the negligence laws had been changed to specifically include injury/death to an "unborn child" the issue before the court was whether a fetus that was not yet viable qualified as an "unborn child". The important part of the decision is that the judge made it very clear that the case had no standing without the recent change in the law. 

South Dakota also has murder and manslaughter laws which specifically protect an unborn child. The change to the justifiable homicide law merely makes it more consistent with the rest of the law. Without this change, a pregnant woman being punched in the stomach with intent to cause a miscarriage would not be justification for homicide. The court would certainly point out that other laws had been modified to include an unborn child but not this one, therefore, the legislature did not intend the killing of an unborn child to be an offense a person could legally use force to prevent. I wasn't able to find any court cases where this specifically happened so I don't know if the change was inspired by an actual situation but court proceedings below Supreme Court level are a bitch to find unless you know the exact case you are looking for. I wish I still had Lexis Nexus so I could do a decent search of case law. 

Regardless, it is quite clear that all the hype about "killing abortion doctors" being legalized is pure bullshit being propagated by a bunch of left wing sites. I have no doubt that many people are seeking legal protection of unborn children for the ultimate goal of getting fetuses recognized as having the same rights as people. But really, the laws about murder and manslaughter that are specifically applied to fetuses in most if not all states (including liberal ones like California) go far more in that direction than this one. 

Edit

FYI The original version of the amendment that was "hoghoused" only gave the pregnant woman the right to kill to protect the fetus. The only real legal difference between the new version and the old is that the new one allows someone else to protect the pregnant woman and the fetus. Since pregnant women are not known for their Muay Thai killing skills I think that is a pretty reasonable change. And rather than creating a new act the new one simply modifies the existing code.

The original amendment said

Hurting the vulnerable, IE, elderly, handicap, mentally challenged, is emotionally appalling to any rational empathetic person.

There is a tendency in our current social climate on BOTH SIDES, to put one label above another label, when simple logic should protect all of us as individuals regardless of label or status.

Physically harming others is out of bounds REGARDLESS, and is what all our laws banning physical violence are based on.

However, for anyone to claim that there is no danger in this law has to be out of their mind. The religious right wing in this country have done everything within their power to retard any competition to their biblical view of this country. They constantly try to bastardize science by trying to claim that ID is equal to evolution. These same idiots believe that Obama is a secret Muslim.

To say that laws like this wont lead to the murder of abortion doctors is willful ignorance. The murder of the abortion doctor a couple years ago, has successfully, NOT LEGALLY, but successfully usurped the rule of law through the use of religious violence. Now you'd have me believe that the lawmakers who sit in power and might be of the social right wing, that could "interpret" this law, won't attempt to use it to their advantage?

If they can throw one person, Scot Roeder, under the bus, and goad him into becoming a martyr for their cause, imagine what they can do with "laws" written in words. I warn you against handing them the loaded weapon you say they don't have.

As long as laws are written by humans and as long as power shifts from one end to the other, from time to time, we must be careful as to how we write laws because we might not be, ourselves, the ones enforcing them or writing them.

I see this as an open door to turn back the clock that has been around since Roe v Wade. It is another step backwards.

Will you admit you are wrong when the next abortion doctor killer gets a lighter sentence because of a stacked jury or a defense lawyer who successfully argues, "Although he shouldn't have done it, he truly believed what he was doing was right"?

You do know, even outside this issue, that defense lawyers can and often do, use the argument, even in domestic murder, "My client was wrong, he did do it, but he truly believed his life was being threatened, no matter how unreasonable that thought was in reality"

The same could be the defense for an abortion doctor killer, "My client truly believed that he was saving lives"

Instead of creating new laws to protect pregnant women, why not enforce the common law of NOT PHYSICALLY HARMING ANYONE for any reason?

By giving them special status you are giving the religious right the very ammo they want. Whereas if you simply say, "Violence as a tactic to solve disputes, is never acceptable" you take away their ability to make it a political issue.

This greater harm in this is that even if an abortion doctor killer is still arrested, it opens the door to use the courts as a platform for their religious agenda. DONT give them that power.

Your missing the point of the law Brian. It is illegal for the person to punch the pregnant woman but that does little good while the act is happening. The proposed law would modify the justifiable homicide law so that force can be used to protect her. You can't just shoot someone for breaking into your house or even punching you. You have to demonstrate that there was imminent danger to your life, otherwise you go to jail for a long time. The amendment simply adds a threat to the fetus to the list of reasons that can be used as defense for justifiable homicide. The law makes it quite clear that the person doing the attacking must be breaking a law and must present a clear threat to the fetus and/or the life of the woman. To say that it could possibly be used as a defense for murdering an abortion doctor demonstrates an extreme ignorance of the law. You could only kill an abortion doctor if that doctor were trying to perform an abortion against the will of the woman and therefore in the process of committing a felonious act.

@ Mellestad

Not really a revelation, although with this story I think it has reached a new low. It is one thing to leave out a few details, emphasize certain angles or to put a spin on a story. This is an outright and knowing lie that can easily be verified. Just pointing it out to all those who love to heap onto "Faux News" but seem to think other news sources are trustworthy.  

No you are missing my point. This is a law that is based on the very real emotion of reacting any empathetic person would have. My point is that it shouldn't matter if someone is being punched for their money, or punched for their race or punched because they are pregnant.

There ARE defenses lawyers use to cut deals or get juries to give a lesser sentence. "iminate danger" RIGHT, but you are assuming that the Jury and judge wont have their own bias. There are plenty of populations in this country that would buy "iminate danger" if someone shot an abortion doctor.

It isn't the law's intent I object to. I object to future laws in more fundy spots that might pop up.

Whats to stop fundie lawmakers to say, "Well if you are going to protect a fetus in this situation, why not protect it in all situations".

You are talking about ONE law and I am talking about the door that that law can open in the future.

Good intent is a cluster fuck long term.

Just leave it at common law.

Punish people more for premeditation REGARDLESS OF REASON

And punish them less for "sudden reaction"

If someone dies as a result of ANY assault for any reason, that doesn't make them any less dead or less important or more important.

If you get punched in the chest in just the right way hard enough, you can cause death. If I hit you in the head with a pipe I can cause death. How does not being pregnant make you less dead if someone kills you?

Believers want this law because it will allow them in the future to say, "If you are willing to protect a fetus in this case, why not all cases?"

Again, we already have laws that ban physical harm FOR ANY REASON and the only difference between punishment is premeditation vs sudden act.

There is nothing stopping a future climate where a right wing bias jury could sympathize with the plight of the killer. They might say, "you shouldn't have done that but we will punish you less because you were trying to do the right thing"

One law is not the issue, climate over all with respect to the future IS.

We do not want to become a society where courts are used as battlegrounds used to justify violence as a political statement.

This is like taking a pill not understanding the long term side affects that are even more dangerous than the intended cure.

Is it wrong to hit a pregnant woman? YES! But it is wrong to hit anyone for that matter.

I wish I could believe you in thinking I am over reacting. I don't think I am. I think fundie lawmakers will look at this and say, "if they can do it, we can go even further".

Yea...my reading of this bill is that the only way this would support the killing of an abortion doctor is if abortion was legally defined as murder, which it obviously isn't.

If abortion *were* legally defined as murder then the whole abortion rights battle would be over anyway, so the point would be moot.

Because they would have to pass a law defining abortion as murder, which would not pass judicial review because it would require the supreme court to backtrack on their past decisions.

That isn't to say that won't happen some day, but it won't have anything to do with this bill if it does.

Honestly, this just looks like closing a potential loophole to me, I don't see any problem with it.    (That is the stupidest smiley ever...I want the smiley shit from the Catholic forum...how much fun would we have with smileys that pray, bow and cross themselves?  Lots.)

PZ is rightly suspicious of the reason for this law.

Apparently this amendment was specifically pushed for by anti-abortion groups, from one of the articles he references

So it is NOT just a matter of 'cleaning up a loop-hole', that is a cover, and the fact that there is a reasonable case for the 'clean-up' is convenient, but that apparently is not the main focus of the groups who directly got this through. So it is more than just a possible 'slippery slope'. That is what PZ is concerned about,