from these tea partiers who are supposedly concerned about fiscal matters.
Bullshit. Says I.
And Ohio say otherwise.
The South Dakota "defence" offered in Washington Post is particularly curious.
""Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend'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." --- only there are already laws against such things. Such as assault. And South Dakota and some other states allow additional murder or manslaughter charges in cases where a pregnant woman is killed or assaulted. What isn't clear here is how someone who isn't involved in the actual decision to conduct and have an abortion, say, this mythical boyfriend, who decides they need to kill someone like the doctor conducting the abortion in order to prevent it, is now somehow magically not encouraged to do so by a law which specifically states "unborn" as a protected class.