South Dakota Shelves “Justifiable Homicide” Measure

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

As we noted in an update Wednesday afternoon, South Dakota legislators have officially shelved the measure that would have allowed protection of a fetus to qualify as “justifiable homicide.” After Mother Jones revealed that the bill created the potential for anti-abortion activists to use this as a defense for killing abortion doctors, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Phil Jensen, faced a good deal of backlash in the state and across the country.

From the Times:

The House speaker, Val Rausch, said that the legislation had been shelved, pending a decision on whether to allow a vote, amend the language or drop it entirely. A spokesman for Gov. Dennis Daugaard said, “Clearly the bill as it’s currently written is a very bad idea.”

When we first reported on the bill, Jensen maintained that its intent was only to clarify the code and balked at the interpretation that it could create a legal defense for killing abortion providers. Now there at least seems to be a recognition that the measure, passed as it was written, would have had serious consequences. And the Times even managed to find at least one anti-abortion activist who was willing to admit that the bill as it was written would have been used against abortion providers:

Dave Leach, an Iowa anti-abortion activist, praised the bill, saying it could end abortions in South Dakota by scaring away doctors or by establishing grounds for someone to kill those who stay.

“There may be something I’m overlooking, but from all appearances, this bill would certainly justify an individual taking the life of an abortionist in order to save human lives,” he said.

It will be interesting to see if the bill comes back in an amended form, or whether it’s gone for good at this point. Meanwhile, though, the bill that would force women to visit Crisis Pregnancy Centers—which are generally run by anti-abortion rights groups—before they can obtain an abortion is still on the table in South Dakota and likely to pass.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend