Republican bill urges "deadly force" to stop abortions in North Carolina
5 months ago by Sunflier to c/politics
From the article:
A bill making its way through the North Carolina Legislature states it would be permissible for a person to use deadly force on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion, something Democrats have branded as "wildly extreme."
The legislation, now only backed by Republican State Representative Keith Kidwell, would classify abortion as first-degree murder and open up the right of another person to defend the life of the unborn baby as they see fit.
"Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person," the bill reads. "The State has an interest and a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons, born or unborn, who have not committed any crime punishable by death."
Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/...
Nothing says being pro-unborn-child like murdering the mother while she's pregnant. That'd really protect the fetus.
Who am I kidding? It's really a cover hoping that someone will storm in and kill the doctors.
If you close one eye and then the other, it doesn’t look that bad.
The fact that they have any hope left in their lives is their most admirable quality.
It's never been able the babies. It's about abusing and controlling women.
If they cared about kids, they would be angry about Trump and the other republicans raping them.
When was the last time someone checked the lead levels in the drinking water in North Carolina?
It's the US. I'm sure it was checked, found to be dangerously high, they determined that work needed to be done immediately and then it just wasn't done.
Not necessarily.
By the time any death penalty (execution) would actually occur the birth would have ample time to come to term, if it was viable.
That'd be interesting though. I suppose the mother could continue to attempt to abort the pregnancy while incarcerated.
People aren't necessarily good lethal shots. Modem medicine is amazing. And funny enough. That dimwit just might consider that and shoot below the waist. To incapacitate but not kill. This is an important distinction in many jurisdictions.
The irony being the perpetrator of an attempted murder would enjoy freedom while the victim of an attempted murder would be incarcerated.
Ultimately, the value of life is arbitrary.
It's amazing how people think they can just talk around a point and no one will notice what a coward they are.
Inb4 this is clearly an excuse for men to murder their pregnant partners and wipe it away as “she was trying to get an abortion” so he can get off scot-free as dead women can’t say anything to defend themselves.
Ah yes, defending an unborn child by checks notes murdering the person carrying the child and therefore also the child
Okay, aside from the obvious "that would also kill the fetus," that's also some really dangerous wording...
states it would be permissible for a person to use deadly force on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion,
"permissible" implies there would be no accountability
"a person" implies that anyone would be permitted to do it
"use deadly force" implies that they can literally murder pregnant mothers
"on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion" implies that they don't need any solid evidence; only the mere belief is enough.
Put it all together, and this bill would give any person in the state free license to murder any pregnant woman, or potentially any woman, for any reason, as long as they claim that they believed she was seeking an abortion.
If anyone needs me to explain why that's bad, then they might be suffering from some sort of brain damage or other cognitive impairment.
Only in a fascist hellscape could a bill like this become law.
This could also extend to killing men that you think are about to murder a woman.
Any man could be about to murder a woman they think is pregnant, and anyone has the right to protect their life or another's.
This is just legalizing murder, full stop.
They wouldn't interpret it that way, but a plain reading of the text supports it.
Tell me this isn't going pass and only sponsor by a fucking nut GOP rep?
Well, seeing as it's the North Carolina state legislature we're talking about, I wouldn't exactly bet on them doing the right thing...
I think you got it backwards
"Pro-life" is an intentional misnomer.
Lot of antisemites described themselves as "anti-usury" and "anti-predatory loaning" instead of antisemite. Lot of anti-queer people describe themselves as "anti-grooming" and "for the diversity of opinions" instead of anti-queer.
Likewise anti-women's rights people are describing themselves as "pro-life". Sure, some pro-lifers are true believers, otherwise it's the same kind of emotional manipulation militant vegans use when they call people "zoocannibals" instead of using actual arguments (which there are a lot actually).
'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn." [Methodist Pastor David Barnhart]
Wait wait wait. Let me make sure I understand. In order to save the fetus you would kill the only entity capable of keeping it alive?
it was never about the fetus
Let's do a little transitive property game.
The bill presupposes that there is an absolute moral duty to protect the unborn.
A theoretical woman is considering an abortion, so it must therefore be okay to murder her.
Therefore, it is okay to murder someone to protect an unborn person.
This bill would make it okay to murder women to protect the unborn.
But that would kill the unborn!
So, it must therefore be okay to kill in order to prevent this bill from passing.
So by this bill's own logic, it would be morally correct to kill Keith Kidwell.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS PURELY AN EXERCISE IN ARGUMENTUM AD ABSURDUM AND NOT AN ACTUAL PROPOSAL. DO NOT DO MURDERS.
Wait a second... If someone is going to kill the mother, they are almost certainly killing the fetus. Therefore wouldn't it be totally legal to shoot anyone who is trying to shoot a pregnant woman as your defending the fetus too?
make it legal to murder women for having abortions
effectively makes it legal to murder women who are pregnant
now you may legally murder / assault any woman, under the guise she was pregnant/was going to have an abortion, if the woman is even a little bit pro abortion or just isn’t a pro”life” psycho, it will be proven that “this man believed she had endangered her baby within reasonable doubt”
Not only would this sexist, misogynist, murderous law allow people to murder women with near impunity, but it is just another piece of legislation that is attempting to legalize Republicans killing any democrat, leftist or otherwise. They tried to do it with Rittenhouse, J6, and inch closer and closer with their “legal” jargon like this all the time, now
I firmly believe this is the end goal of American and other oligarch capitalists when it comes to laws like this. I really hope it would be like “fighting words” where it’s not very enforceable in practice, but that doesn’t matter when women are being killed or even dying being denied healthcare.
They don’t care about the “unborn”. They want to force you to have children so your children can become their worker slaves or even worse with what we’ve seen in all this Epstein stuff. God I hate this place
We're a Christian nation after all.
Praise be 🥲😵💫🙏🛐
Just waiting for a Jewish legal group to sue for breaching freedom of religion protections. The life of the mother takes precedence.
An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth). In fact, until 40 days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.” These facts form the basis for the Jewish legal view on abortion.
That’s depressingly prescient.
freedom of religion, and not freedom of religions
"It says no HomerS. We're allowed to have one."
How any woman could vote Republican is beyond me.
because "The only moral abortion is my abortion"
because " I'm against this because those filthy non-whites use it, but its okay once I need it"
because " I support this because it hurts people that arent me " ( cue inevitable wailing about the unfairness and cruelty of it all when it comes home to hurt them too.)
In one word: hypocrisy
"I never thought the leopards would eat my face"
- Person who voted for the "Leopards Eating Faces Party" after having their face eaten.
They vote whoever their priests tell them to vote for, because apparently, church-state separation was something made up by woke liberals or something.
Artificially limited options in the voting booth?
Shut up you ugly fucks
Nah, only if they look like a human q-tip and have all the inner character of Joseph Goebbels. Then yeah, I'd expect there would be a bit of unwanted self-recognition.
Oh, the horror. Let me just cry some liberal tears over here for the weird-ass no-discernible-conscience Miller/Goebbels-lookalike NPC motherfuckers personally affected by this egregious slur. Okay, done.
@Zachariah @Kirp123 beauty is subjective
Ugly on the inside.
Is that Talarico? I didn't know he was trans. Or is Steven Millhouse just full of shit?
no, the mastermind of the regime is genuinely essentially just saying "ur gay" like a middle schooler in 2003. that's the best he could come up with. and it will work with their voter base
Copy-and-pasting this from another thread:
Republicans must be scared of Talarico. His message seems to resonate with his base. He's a white christian man, so in other words "Just a great guy!" in their view.
Also, he's not afraid to call out the establishment. The republican base likes that kind of stuff, they've just been misled into believing that "the establishment" means jews and diversity hires instead of corporate-financial oligarchs and their political lackeys.
Talarico has been pretty effective at meeting these people where they're at and redirecting their ire towards the oligarchy where it belongs.
That must terrify republican politicians.
He isn't, but calling someone trans is the new calling someone gay.
So to defend the life of an unborn baby they're going to make it legal to kill the mother carrying it? What the actual fuck do they think would happen to the unborn baby in that scenario? Dumb beyond belief doesn't even come close to describing this and is a prime example why religion should be absolutely nowhere near law making.
I think this really is the goal. The health professionals are the realistic target.
As everyone notes, the concept of killing the mother to stop an abortion makes zero sense, but open season on any providers...
Edit: what Zabjam said
- a woman is going to have an abortion
- someone goes after her to kill her
- someone else goes after the person above to kill them, protecting the woman
- repeat as many times as you wish
Cherry on top: this gets into court, and judge goes "it's all woman's fault, jail her for life"
@Shanmugha @Sunflier jail them all.
Extremely ignorant in general
Abusers do love killing pregnant women.
They sure moved past the whole "we don't want to punish the people seeking abortions" excuse right quick, thanks SCOTUS. You've enabled justifiable homicide for abortion, which not only kills the mother but also the fetus for good measure.
I'm old enough to remember all these assholes gaslighting about how rolling back Roe won't "really" bring about Gilead states.
I had at least one poster trying to get me banned from Denver Post forums for saying it, by the way. Apparently they found the comparison to Gilead to be hurtful and against community guidelines and not sufficiently milquetoast or whatever. Gotta love the Tone Police.
cause they arent pro-life.
they are pro-fetus.
because a fetus is an amazing tool.
They can force any idealism they want on a fetus, and the fetus has no way to say no.
Liking young things that cant say no is kind of a running theme among conservatives.
Is it cool if we stop posting shit from Newsweek?
Yes, the bill is real, but I almost completely disregarded this as ragebait, which it likely still is on OPs part.
Newsweek is not news, it is a notoriously inaccurate tabloid.
The only moral abortion is the one that they perform
wildly extreme
Uhhh. I mean. They're not wrong per se... 😅
He's advocating murdering pregnant women; wildly extreme doesnt quite seem to cover it
Interesting, I don't know that I've ever seen it typed before! Thank you! ☺️
Text of the bill:
Subject to approval by a majority of voters during the 2026 general election, adds new Section 39 to Article I of the North Carolina Constitution as follows. Specifies that human life begins at fertilization. Recognizes a new human life as an individual person, entitled to the protection of the laws of this State from the moment of fertilization until the moment of natural death. Holds persons willfully seeking to destroy the life of another, at any stage of life, or who succeeds in doing so, accountable for first-degree murder, or attempted murder. Specifies that any person has the right to defend the life of themselves or another, even by use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person. Specifies that the State has an interest and a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons, born or unborn, who have not committed any crime punishable by death. If approved, effective January 1, 2027.
Holds persons willfully seeking to destroy the life of another, at any stage of life, or who succeeds in doing so, accountable for first-degree murder, or attempted murder.
That's the part where I see them giving leeway to dumbfucks to just got shoot up abortion clinics. Its not really about killing the women (through they'd let that go by too) its about killing the doctors.
*Edit: its also about killing the mom who takes her raped daughter across state lines to get an abortion elsewhere
Oh, I hadn't considered trying to take out the docs (my initial read was focused on the mothers). That's an especially bad feel.
I think NC Republicans are willfully trying to destroy their own citizens, especially women.
What idiotic wording. So if I see some asshole shooting a woman who they believe is having an abortion, I guess I can then legally kill him too since “any person has the right to defend the life of themselves or another, even by use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.”
Oh no, then someone can kill me for the same reason.. and so on.
Well, North Carolina has some beautiful scenes. I wouldn't mind moving in and taking the place over if they daisy chained this law into wiping themselves out completely.
How about a bill urging deadly force for rapists? Deadly force for congressional insider trading? Deadly force for using deadly force without an act of congress? Deadly force for fraud? Deadly force for accepting "gifts" while in office? Deadly force for ignoring congressional subpoenas? Deadly force for using the justice dept to harass rape victims? Deadly force for using office to make billions? Deadly force for hiring your own kids and placing them in office?
We're going to MURDER PREGNANT WOMEN to Save Unborn Babies!
-Republicans LITERALLY!
Seems like getting surgically sterilized is an actual form of self-defense. I'm sure they'll make up some bullshit excuse to try and stop that too, but point stands.
The only psycho backing this bill is Keith Kidwell who represents the tiny coastal district 79.
If someone attempts to use lethal force against a pregnant woman who is seeking an abortion, then it would stand to reason that that person is threatening the life of the fetus and can thus be stopped by the pregnant woman or a bystander with lethal force
Let's kill the mothers, that'll save the children.
Makes perfect sense.
use deady force on a woman to stop an abortion
Do... Eh. Do these people understand how life works, and that ending the mothers life would surely stop the abortion, but also kill the fetus? Like, do I need to explain this?
Talking about throwing out the baby with the bathwater
You remember how they were looking up taking braindead women and using their bodies as human incubators? Seems kinda related
They do understand killing the mother kills the fetus too right?
Understanding is too big of a word for MAGA.
I hope that every moderate politician across the state loudly proclaims this is obvious evidence that the GOP's core value is not protecting life but punishing "promiscuous" women who dare to have sex for any reason other than procreation.
This is the same party that is lamenting the country's birth rate, by the way. They aren't even pretending to care about women any more.
So isn't that also an abortion?
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Ummm. Wouldn't that also kill the baby?
When was the last time someone checked the lead levels in the drinking water in North Carolina?
save