Time's Newton-Small Erroneously Suggests S.D. 'Considering Legalizing the Murder' of Abortionists
Time magazine's Swampland blog bills itself as a "blog about politics and policy."
All too often, however, it's more or less a blog about furthering liberal talking points.
Take today's misleading one-sentence blog post by Jay Newton-Small in which she links to the liberal blog Talking Points Memo:
South Dakota is apparently considering legalizing the murder of doctors who perform abortions.
"So Much For Thou Shalt Not Kill," reads the headline for Newton-Small's Tuesday afternoon blog post (see screen cap below page break):

For its part, the TPM post about the legislation in question similarly uses an alarming, misleading headline, "South Dakota Bill Could Legalize Murder of Abortion Providers."
Even so, writer Jillian Rayfield gives both sides of the story in addition to quoting an excerpt of the proposed law:
Killing a doctor who performs abortions could soon be legal in South Dakota -- that is, if a bill passed out of committee in the state House of Representatives on Monday, which makes it a "justifiable homicide" for someone to kill anyone attempting to harm an unborn child, becomes law.
State Rep. Phil Jensen (R), who introduced the bill, was quick to deny that the law is designed to prevent women from having abortions, telling TPM that it is instead a way to provide "consistency" to South Dakota law, and afford "a greater degree of personhood to an unborn child."
[...]
Jensen cited a South Dakota law currently on the books that includes killing "an unborn child" as part of the definition for manslaughter. He told TPM he's "trying to bring some consistency to South Dakota" with this new language.
He denied that the bill would open the door to killing abortion doctors, since abortion is legal. "This code only deals with illegal acts, which doesn't include abortion," he said.
"There is a time and a place where you can defend yourself and it may result in the death of someone who's attacking you," Jensen continued.
As an example, Jensen described a scenario in which an "ex-lover or ex-spouse who doesn't want to pay child support," and so confronts the pregnant woman and "begins to beat on their abdomen and try to abort their baby." This would "give protection for those who come to the aid of a pregnant woman."
Even though the law already protects people (including, presumably, pregnant women) who commit murder in self-defense, and those who might commit murder while defending someone else, Jensen simply argued: "It protects not only the woman, but also the life of the unborn child."
Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, argued to Mother Jones that in practice,"this is not an abstract bill," and could invite "misguided extremist [to invoke] this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer."
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Slippery Slope
Submitted by Prowler-Getz on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:08pm.
When those on the left oppose a bill, such as this one, they play the slippery slope card, ie, "that in practice...could invite". However, for bills they support, such as any gun control bill, the slippery slope agrument is ridiculed, ie, "of course we don't want to ban ALL guns, just the bad ones".
Hell,...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:21pm.
What's a couple of abortionists against 100,000,000 babies murdered????????? Am I missing some reason to keep them alive????????????? Just asking!
Oh, no, it's the extremists again!
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:25pm.
Oh, no! They're worried about someone violating the law by murdering a doctor and claiming that it's legal! Hay, idiot, that argument would NEVER stand up in a court of law. Get real, will you? You may as well argue that making self-defense against robbery legal will result in spurring some extremist to, oh, I don't know, KILL SOMEBODY!
If you want to argue against a bill, use REASONABLE argument's ok? otherwise, you're just making a fool of yourself.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Thune Gaining Traction?
Submitted by BuffNBone on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:30pm.
Articles like this could be an indicator that Sen John Thune might be gaining some traction for a 2012 bid. In terms of electoral votes, SD brings very little to the table but he looks like he could have some gravitas. The traction could continue to build until the media does a few hit pieces. For starters, they'll try to get him on camera saying he'll to promise to educate them thar hicks in the Mt. Rushmore State.
WOW!!!!
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:30pm.
Man, am I glad the left doesn't use fear mongering like those crazy right wingers!!!!!
Deliberately inciteful and dishonest.
Submitted by NeoKong on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 5:19pm.
That's not what the bill is about and Jillian Rayfield knows that. TPM and Time magazine have deliberately published a lie. Did anyone else also puck up on the little dig on bible thumpers with the snarkiness of "So much for thou shall not kill"...? That was obviously meant to call people who believe in the Ten Commandments hypocrites for legalizing what Jay Newton Small-minded considers murder.
To try and depict that law as permission to kill an abortion doctor is like trying to say you have the right to kill a surgeon because he came at you with a knife. It is an extrapolation of hyperbole and 100% false. It was a lie. It was a lie. It was a lie. It was a lie.....Standard operation and fairly routine now apparently for todays media.
Actually, that scripture
Submitted by MikeB on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 7:22pm.
Actually, that scripture says, "You must not murder", or "Thou shalt not murder". There is an entirely different Aramaic word for "kill". The rendition of the scripture to "thou shalt not kill" is an obvious mistranslation, because the Mosaic Law prescribes the death penalty for many crimes, including murder, rape, and kidnap for ransom. If the Israelites were not supposed to kill, how could they put to death the violators of the Law?