Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled on Friday that defense attorneys can present evidence to support a conviction of "voluntary manslaughter," defined in Kansas law as '"an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force," for Scott Roeder, the man charged with murdering abortion provider Dr. George Tiller on May 31, 2009.

The Feminist Majority Foundation argues, "Allowing an argument that this cold-blooded, premeditated murder could be voluntary manslaughter will embolden anti-abortion extremists and could result in 'open season' on doctors across the country." Besides the possibility of justifying murder, in anti-choice advocates' eyes, this type of conviction would also bring different consequences: The New York times reports: "Roeder faces life imprisonment if convicted of first-degree murder. A voluntary manslaughter conviction could bring a prison term closer to five years, depending on prior criminal record."

Wilbert did say, at Friday's hearing, that ''I had to shoot and kill Dr. Tiller to save unborn babies'' from abortion doesn't meet the necessity defense. Abortions, of course, are legal. Further, by legal standards, one life is not worth more than another, so even considering Roeder's moral point of view, the murder could not be deemed justified by Judge Wilbert.

So my question to all you legal experts out there, why is Judge Wilbert entertaining the voluntary manslaughter defense?

• Tags:
• Law
• Reproductive Justice

View Original Post at feministing.com