Last Tuesday, the magazine Mother Jones caused a stir when it ran an article highlighting a bill currently working its way through the South Dakota State legislature. Representative Phil Jensen introduced House Bill 1171: “An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.”
The bill would expand the legal definition of justifiable homicide, which is currently based on defending one’s self and family members from attack. The new version would also include defending you or your loved one’s fetus from attack.
“Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn’t want to pay child support for the next 18 years,” Jensen explained by way of example, “and he beats on his ex-girlfriend’s abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child.”
Opponents have quickly seized upon what they see as insidious ulterior motives in the bill. The Mother Jones article insists the bill could allow a murderer to walk free on the grounds of justifiable homicide if he kills a doctor who provided an abortion to his family member. Meanwhile, a Washington Post columnist latched onto an issue that Democrats have been pushing since the Arizona shooting, and which I myself have written about, suggesting the bill is a piece of irresponsible rhetoric that condones violence by offering a wink and a nod to unhinged, would-be assassins.
Jensen defended the bill to Mother Jones and The Post, adamantly denying it would 
offer legal cover to murderers or encourage them in any way. He notes that justifiable homicide only applies when one is being defended from criminal activity. Since it is perfectly legal to perform an abortion, someone who murders a doctor could not claim justifiable homicide under his bill. On the issue of encouraging loony toons, Jensen was less articulate (at least judging by the articles), but every bit as dismissive.
On this level of debate, I have to agree with Jensen. I’ve read the bill, and the idea that it would offer legal protection to murderers is nothing short of paranoid hysteria. As far as it serving as an assassins call-to-arms, SD H.B. 1171 probably would have gotten little or any press at all if not for the Mother Jones story. And in fact, this is exactly the kind of unborn personhood law that anti-abortionists usually try to fly under the radar, which is probably why Jensen offered it as an amendment. In other words, the whole public rhetoric premise just doesn’t make much sense.
So do I bring this all up to say Mother Jones and The Washington Post should not have covered SD H.B. 1171 and that I support its passage?
No.
For starters, I’m opposed to the bill. Beyond that, I think this is a story worth covering.
What I resent is irresponsible (MJ) and lazy (Post) journalism putting me in a position where I feel compelled to defend Phil Jensen, a politician who so far as I can tell, probably agrees with me on very, very little. The failings of Mother Jones and The Post are not that they have covered this story, but that they circumscribed the real issue by opting to stir up partisan readership.
From a legal standpoint, Phil Jensen’s bill is obviously extraneous, needless clutter on the state’s books, which is one reason why I would never support it. To prove it, let me ask you a simple question.
Regardless of your feelings about abortion, can you imagine any court in America convicting a pregnant woman of any crime whatsoever, much less murder, because she defended herself against a man who was “beating” her hard enough to cause major trauma? Seriously.
So assuming Jensen’s not an absolute idiot, one can only conclude that he does in fact have an ulterior motive. And while he may or may not be a bit of a kook or a pandering cynic (he’s also the primary sponsor of a bill to prohibit the application of foreign laws in South Dakota), Jensen is not an idiot. Rather, he is a very successful businessman and a savvy political operative who’s been in the game since first going to work for Bob Dole at age nineteen.
Jensen’s ulterior motive is not about clandestinely recruiting or offering laughably unconstitutional legal cover to random lunatic assassins. It’s about expressing his cultural values and rallying his political base, which are exactly the kinds of things 
smart politicians do to firm up grassroots support and advance their political agendas.
Specifically, it’s about the ascendance and expression of pro-life/anti-abortion (choose your preferred term) culture in South Dakota, where most people are actually pro-choice at least to some degree, but a large, vocal, hardcore, and well organized minority has done everything it can to limit abortions rights.
No wonder then that the committee vote on the bill split along party lines. Or that invited testimony in support of it came exclusively from anti-abortion groups. Because not only does Phil Jensen personally oppose abortion, but smart, active politicians like him have made South Dakota one of the most restrictive in the nation when it comes to accessing abortion services.
The South Dakota state government has erected a host of obstacles to doctors in the form of fees and intentionally complex and obstructionist regulations (so much for Republicans championing small government). These measures are so effective that it has been seventeen years since there was an abortion provider based in South Dakota. Instead, once a week Planned Parenthood flies a doctor to a clinic in Sioux Falls, the state’s largest city, located at its far western edge.
Beyond impeding doctors, additional legislation harasses female patients. Women cannot have an abortion in one day. Instead, they are forced to endure a waiting 
period after being subjected to a mandatory consultation in which they are offered an ultrasound and given misleading information about the psychological impact of having an abortion and the pain a fetus feels, even though a fetus does not have the capacity to feel anything until the end of the second trimester, when an abortion is illegal anyway except if the mother’s health is at risk. Pending legislation would extend the waiting period to 72 hours and mandate women get advance counseling from Crisis Pregnancy Centers: private, unregulated propaganda mills staffed by anti-abortion partisans.
These are the real issues at play.
The Post column (it was not a hard news piece) was simply an uninspired take that missed the larger point completely, instead settling for another chorus of “Sarah Palin Practically Shot Gabrielle Giffords Herself.” The Mother Jones piece, to be fair, did discuss the pertinent issues, but they were overshadowed by outrageous claims about phantom legal loopholes for murderers.
So why use the inflammatory and inaccurate headline “South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers?” Because Mother Jones is an openly partisan 
magazine trying to do the same thing Phil Jensen is: energize its political base and inspire them to work hard to advance a political agenda.
I support a woman’s right to choose. But I disapprove of intellectually dishonest tactics, even if your opponents use them. Combat lies with the truth instead of better lies. I’ve never been one to say “fight fire with fire.” Ask the professionals. They use water.
Next time I’ll use the truth to expose a particularly atrocious lie about abortions.