[The State] Personhood Bill S.217 to outlaw all “abortions” in South Carolina passed favorably by Senate Judiciary Committee, by 12 – 9 vote

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
February 20, 2018

Personhood Bill S .217 to outlaw all “abortions” in South Carolina passed favorably by Senate Judiciary Committee, by 12 – 9 vote
____________________________
____________________________

Excerpt:

After the vote, Gov. McMaster praised the [ Senate Judiciary ] committee’s decision.

“I believe that human life begins at conception, and I believe the people of South Carolina deserve for their laws to reflect the values they hold dear,” the Richland Republican said in a statement.
“I applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision to move this important legislation forward and ask that the Senate pass it without delay.”

The State ( Columbia, SC )
Plan to outlaw all abortions in South Carolina gets OK from Senate panel
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article201090564.html
February 20, 2018

___________________________


[ Pro-“Abortion” ] The State ( Columbia, SC )
Plan to outlaw all abortions in South Carolina gets OK from Senate panel
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article201090564.html
February 20, 2018 01:30 PM
Updated 31 minutes ago

[ CP Note: Emphasis added; comments, additional information in bold red added ]

A Republican proposal that, effectively, would ban all abortions in South Carolina is headed to the full Senate for a vote despite concerns it could criminalize fertility treatment [ FALSES .217 would NOT ban in vitro fertilization; it does affirm right of SC General Assembly to regulate in vitro procedures.  Any practice attendant to in vitro fertilization which kills a preborn human being could be banned by further legislation. ] and some types of birth control [ S .217 does NOT ban contraception.  Any “birth control” which causes chemical “abortions” would have to be proven by the State of South Carolina to function in that way ], and ban abortions performed to save the mother’s life [ FALSE ].

A state Senate committee [ full Judiciary Committee ] OK’d [ favorably passed ] the proposal Tuesday after two hours of debate, voting 12-9 along party lines to extend legal rights to fertilized eggs [ sic – zygotes / embryos / fetuses / all pre-birth human beings ] at the moment of conception [ same as fertilization ].

One Republican on the panel did not vote on the proposal [ Senator Sandy Senn (R-Charleston) ], saying it was unconstitutional [ sic – See LEGAL EXPERTS SUPPORTING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE-LEVEL PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION IN SC (2001), MISS (2009), ALA (2011), and OK (2012) ].  However, advocates see the proposal as a way, possibly, to overturn the 1972 [ sic – 1973 ] Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion [ sic“Abortion” is NOT legal ].

The proposal [ S .217 Personhood Bill of South Carolina], which must pass the full Senate and House, has been praised by abortion opponents and condemned by [ sic – some ] medical and [ sic – some ] women’s rights groups.

The “Personhood Act” [ S .217 ] that GOP senators approved Tuesday was sponsored by Lt. Gov. Kevin Bryant – when he still was a state senator – and endorsed by Gov. Henry McMaster.  Both are seeking the Republican nomination for governor in June’s GOP primary, where the abortion issue is a key one to Republican voters.

continued…

The Personhood Act would outlaw … [ all ] … of the nearly 6,000 abortions performed in South Carolina each year.
Just two other states – Kansas and Missouri – have a personhood law. But in both states, that law is expressly subject to the U.S. Constitution [ FALSE – Kansas and Missouri have subjected themselves “to the Constitution of the United States, AND decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court …” ( in other words, to Supreme Court OPINIONS about what the written text of the US Constitution says, which according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution itself, are NOT what comprise “the supreme Law of the Land”. ]  [ emphasis added ]

Its champion in the Senate, Richard Cash, R-Anderson, says the proposal is intended to spark a court case that could be used to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion under the 14th Amendment.
[ CP Note: By DENYING the PERSONHOOD of pre-birth human beings ].

“We are trying to challenge the Supreme Court on their fundamental error that a human being is not a person,” Cash said. “A human being is a person.”

[ CP Note: Black’s Law Dictionary, used by attorneys states:  “person” – “A human being.” ]

Senate Democrats on Tuesday complained the proposal, even after a revision Tuesday, leaves too many questions unanswered.

“I don’t think the authors of this bill and the authors of this amendment have considered the consequences,” said state Sen. Thomas McElveen, D-Sumter. “We need to do our job here. Our job is to get out as good of legislation as we can … before we get it on the floor for debate.”

Democrats relayed concerns from fertility specialists who said they don’t want to be charged with murder for disposing of any fertilized eggs that aren’t used during in-vitro fertilization.

Cash replied the bill explicitly does not outlaw in-vitro fertilization. But, the Anderson Republican added, fertilization clinics “should not be allowed to destroy the eggs.”

Opponents also worry the Personhood Act could target doctors who perform abortions in medical emergencies that threaten the mother’s life. An amendment to Cash’s bill states that a doctor cannot be charged for the accidental or unintentional death of an unborn child if that doctor is making “reasonable medical efforts” to save both the mother and child during a medical emergency.

Democrats also weren’t happy that the bill makes no exception for abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Cash didn’t back down after state Sen. Margie Bright Matthews, D-Colleton, offered a hypothetical situation involving a 11-year-old girl.

“If a child is raped, yes, that is a horrible act,” Cash said. “Two wrongs don’t make a right. You cannot erase the rape by killing the child. The child is an innocent person.”

“Have you ever been raped?” state Sen. Mia McLeod, D-Richland, asked, starting a line of questioning that Cash refused to answer. “Have you ever been pregnant?”

Cash said the bill is not intended to outlaw birth control but said the bill doesn’t expressly state that intention because “birth control pills, the way that they are formulated, have and could change over time.”

The bill faces heavy opposition from Senate Democrats, who can use the chamber’s rules to hold it up. An earlier version of the bill died on the Senate floor in 2016.

State Sen. Sandy Senn, R-Charleston, abstained from voting, saying she thinks the bill is unconstitutional but didn’t want to vote against a pro-life proposal.

After the vote, Gov. McMaster praised the [ Senate Judiciary ] committee’s decision.

“I believe that human life begins at conception, and I believe the people of South Carolina deserve for their laws to reflect the values they hold dear,” the Richland Republican said in a statement. “I applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision to move this important legislation forward and ask that the Senate pass it without delay.”

___________________________
___________________________
___________________________

Additional information provide by Christians for Personhood:

LEGAL EXPERTS SUPPORTING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE-LEVEL PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION
IN SC (2001), MISS (2009), ALA (2011), and OK (2012):
Herb Titus is an attorney, constitutional scholar, author, the founding Dean of College of Law/Gov’t at Regent University
Mathew Staver is former Dean of the School of Law at Liberty University; and Liberty Counsel founder and chair
– Judge Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is President Emeritus of Foundation for Moral Law
  April 5, 2016
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2016-04-05-Legal-experts-supporting-constitutionality-of-State-level-Personhood-legislation-SC-MISS-ALA-OK-edited-Jan-27-2017.pdf    

“PERSONHOOD” is the key to ENDING child-murder-by-‘abortion’A plain reading of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and analogous due process and equal protection language in the State Constitutions [ for example, Article I., Section 3. of the South Carolina Constitution ], indicates that legal status and therefore protection of constitutional rights, is granted to ’PERSONS’ in these provisions.  The issue of personhood for the ‘fetus’ as being the preeminently critical issue was specifically addressed by a US Supreme Court Justice during the October 11, 1972 Roe v. Wade Oral Reargument.
[ Go to these internet links to both a transcript and the actual audio of the October 11, 1972 Roe v. Wade Oral Reargument. ]

_______________________________

THE 1973 ROE V. WADE OPINION REVEALS THAT ESTABLISHING PERSONHOOD FOR THE PREBORN AT FERTILIZATION, WITH NO ‘EXCEPTIONS’ , IS THE KEY TO ENDING CHILD-MURDER BY ‘ABORTION’.
[ However, Roe v. Wade itself is a fraud, denying preborn personhood, and making a ‘strawman’ argument with the 14th Amdt.]

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)  (Opinion published January 22, 1973)  Findlaw.com

“The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development.  If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s [ pro-abortion ] case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the AmendmentThe appellant [ pro-abortion side ] conceded as much on reargument. … ”
[ emphasis added ]

________________________________

THE KEY, CRITICAL, FIRST, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN ROE V. WADE (1973) WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE ‘FETUS’ ( PRE-BIRTH HUMAN BEING ), WOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN LAW AS A LEGAL ‘PERSON’:
[ Note:  American Constitutional Law even recognizes Corporations as legal ‘Persons’, but not preborn Human Beings !!! ]

Excerpt from transcript (edited) of Reargument ( October 11, 1972 ) of Roe v. Wade before the US Supreme Court:

US Supreme Court Justice:
“And the basic constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it ?” 
[ p. 827 ]

Mr. Robert Flowers (Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas):
“Yes, sir, and entitled to the constitutional protection.” 
[ p. 827 ]

US Supreme Court Justice:  “And that’s critical to this case, is it not?”  [ p. 828 ]

Mr. Robert Flowers (Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas):  “Yes, sir, it is. … (continued).”  [ p. 828 ]

(Video) SC Personhood Bill S.217 “Carried Over” by 18-5 vote in Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 30, 2018; Next meeting Tues., Feb. 6

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
February 5, 2018

(Video) SC Personhood Bill S .217 “Carried Over” by 18-5 vote in Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 30, 2018; Next meeting Tues., Feb. 6


Names of all 23 Senate Judiciary Committee members ( 14 R, 9 D ) may be viewed here .

Senators pictured above in January 30 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Gressette Bldg, Room 105, L-R, starting with back row:

Senator Tom Young (R-Aiken)
Senator Katrina Shealy (R-Lexington)
Senator Kevin Johnson (D-Clarendon)
Senator Brad Hutto (D-Orangeburg)
Senate Staff person
Senator Luke Rankin, Chairman (R-Horry)
Senate Staff person
Senator Gerald Malloy (D-Darlington)
Senator Shane Massey (R-Edgefield)
Senator Ross Turner (R-Greenville)
Senator Marlon Kimpson (D-Charleston)
Senator Margie Bright Matthews (D-Colleton)

[ Missing from back row: Ronnie Sabb (D-Williamsburg), Senator Chip Campsen (R-Charleston) Note: both these were present for most of the meeting; the only absent Senator was Thomas McElveen (R-Sumter) ]

Senators pictured, L-R, in front row:

Senator Richard Cash (R-Anderson)
Senator Sandy Senn (R-Charleston)
Senator Mia McLeod (D-Richland)
Senator Mike Fanning (D-Chester)
Senator Mike Gambrell (R-Anderson)
Senator Wes Climer (R-York)
Senator Stephen Goldfinch (R-Georgetown)
Senator Rex Rice (R-Pickens)
Senator Scott Talley (R-Greenville)
Senator William Timmons (R-Greenville)

All 46 South Carolina Senators may be viewed here .  [ Note: Senator John Courson under indictment has been suspended ]

__________________________________
__________________________________

Recent Action Jan 30 and Upcoming Meeting Feb 6:

– On January 30, the SC Personhood Bill S .217 was listed first on the Senate Judiciary Comm. Agenda and was discussed for just over 1 1/2 hours before the 18-5 vote to “Carry Over” the S .217 bill until the next meeting.

– The next Senate Judiciary Committee meeting is Tuesday, February 6, beginning at 11:00 am, and S .217 is again on the Agenda, but this time is not listed at the top.

Senate Meeting Schedule
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/meetings.php?chamber=S

Tuesday, February 6
11:00 am
— Gressette Room 105 — Judiciary Committee
Agenda Available
Live Broadcast
Live Broadcast – Audio Only

The February 6 meeting is again in the Senate Gressette Bldg, Rm 105 (seats approx. 100).
[ The Senate Gressette Bldg is located to immediate rear of the SC State House, on the southwest side. ]

Please come early (recommend 10am or earlier) and help pack the room with praying Christian Pro-Personhood supporters.

It is likely Planned Parenthood supporters will be coming as well, and it is important for the 23 Senate members [ 14 R, 9 D ] of the Judiciary Committee to see a strong Pro-Personhood presence  [ Note: Of the 14 Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, only 10 have signed on as co-sponsors of S.217Rice, Turner, Young, Timmons, Talley, Shealy, Goldfinch, Climer, Gambrell, Cash.  [ Note: There are also 10 other co-sponsors of S.217 as well, who are not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, for a total of 20 ( 19 R, 1 D ) S.217 co-sponsors in the SC Senate, which presently consists of 45 ( 27 R, 18 D ) sitting SC Senators. ]

Republican Senate Majority Leader, and Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Massey has not signed on as a S.217 co-sponsor, but has stated he will vote for the bill when he has the opportunity.

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Rankin has not yet agreed to support S.217.

Senator Senn stated publicly in the January 30 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting:

     “I am a Republican, pro-life, and [ Roman ] Catholic.  I do not want to vote against a bill that encourages pro-life, but this bill is so far out of bounds as far as its constitutionality, I don’t think it can be retrieved,…”

[ View
South Carolina Legislature archive video [ Begin video time 54:40 Senator Senn comments on her opposition to SC Personhood Bill S.217 ]

Senator Campsen has been a long-time opponent of Personhood legislation ( although when SC Personhood legislation was first introduced in February 1998, then-Representative Campsen was actually a co-sponsor !? ).

__________________________________
__________________________________

Further Reporting on January 30 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting:

– The committee room ( Gressette Room 105, below ) was filled to its approx. 100-seat capacity.
(It was also reported a separate overflow room had approx. 70 in attendance.)

_______________________________
_______________________________

(Video) Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Jan 30, 2018, SC Personhood Bill S.217:

South Carolina Legislature

Video Archives by meeting time
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php
Select Year:  2018

Tuesday, January 30, 2018  11:00 am
Senate Judiciary Committee — Judiciary Committee
 
Agenda

Gressette Senate Office Building, Room 105
Video – 1:50:43

____________________________

– Several Senators spoke on the SC Personhood Bill S .217 Jan 30, both supporters and opponents.

 
[ Selected approx. video times listed below facilitate viewing of selected comments of various Senators as identified; however, during some of the time periods listed below, more than only the identified Senator may have spoken. ]

– Selected comments by Supporters of the SC Personhood Bill S .217 included:

1) Senator Richard Cash (R-Anderson) – View video [ Video times: 9:25 – 17:55; and 1:29:30 – 1:31:50 ]

[ Founder and former executive director of Personhood South Carolina ]

2) Senator Rex Rice (R-Pickens) – View video [ Video times: 30:50 – 31:15; and 1:38:10 – 1:39:40 ]

3) Senator Stephen Goldfinch (R-Georgetown) – View video [ Video times: 32:30 – 33:40; and 38:40 – 39:25 ]

4) Senator William Timmons (R-Greenville) – View video [ Video time: 43:30 – 46:25 ]

[ Attorney, former Asst. Solicitor for 13th Circuit – good explanation of use of Personhood Act of SC as a vehicle to challenge Roe v Wade ]

5) Senator Wes Climer (R-York) – View video [ Video times: 1:00:00 – 1:02:00; and 1:13:40 – 1:14:15; and 1:27:30 – 1:28:00 ]

6) Senator Katrina Shealy (R-Lexington) – View video [ Video times: 1:24:50 – 1:27:30; and 1:13:40 – 1:14:15; and 1:28:00 – 1:29:30; and 1:37:30 – 1:37:35 ( Senator Shealy’s Motion to carry S .217 bill over ) ]

_____________________________

– Selected comments by Opponents of the SC Personhood Bill S .217 included:

1) Senator Margie Bright Matthews (D-Colleton) – View video [ Video times: 2:20 – 8:10; and 33:45 – 38:35; and 1:02:00 – 1:03:00 ]

[ Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Luke Rankin’s (R-Horry) hand-picked pro-child-murder-by-“abortion” chairwoman of the 5-man Subcommittee which passed S .217 out of Subcommittee by a 3Y-2N vote last year, April 26, 2017.  During the Subcommittee meeting on April 26, 2017, Senator Bright Matthews (attorney) abused her power as Chair and skipped over at least two Pro-Personhood speakers on the sign-up list, including a Christian woman with 34 years experience as Director of the Care Pregnancy Center, who was prepared to speak on her experience dealing with clients regarding the DAMAGE DONE TO WOMEN BY “ABORTION”.  So this Pro-Personhood testimony was blocked from being heard in the April 26, 2017 Subcommittee Hearing by Senator Rankin’s pro-“abortion” chairwoman. ]

2) Senator Luke Rankin (R-Horry) – View video [ Video times: 8:10 – 10:00; and 31:15 – 32:30 and 57:10 – 59:15; and 1:10:00 – 1:11:00; and 1:34:00 – 1:37:30 ( includes Senator Rankin’s “I will take just a second to complain somewhat” comments, and ending with his comments about following the examples of Kansas and Missouri, whose statutes subjected their implementation to Supreme Court decisions ); and 1:37:35 – 1:39:40 ( includes 18-5 vote to carry over; incorrectly reported by Senator Rankin as 19-4 vote ) ]

[ In 2017, Senator Rankin waited over two months to even assign S .217 to a Judiciary Subcommittee, until March 22, 2017, after then-Senator (now SC Lt Gov) Kevin Bryant had introduced S .217 on the first day of the 2017 Legislative Session, January 10, 2017.  Read more details of Senator Luke Rankin’s delaying tactics, “slow-walking” S .217 through the entire 2017 Legislative Session here and here and here.  In 2018, the South Carolina Legislature convened on Tuesday, January 9, however the Senate Judiciary Committee was not called by the Chairman, Senator Luke Rankin (R-Horry), to meet on January 9, nor on January 16, nor on January 23 !  The January 30 meeting of Chairman Rankin’s Senate Judiciary Committee was the first meeting in 2018.  Under normal procedures, legislation should be sent from the SC Senate to the SC House by April 10, and the END of the regular 2018 Legislative Session of the SC Legislature is May 10.  Has Senator Rankin already begun successfully “slow-walking” S .217 in the 2018 Legislative Session to consume precious time needed for debate and passage ? ]

3) Senator Brad Hutto (D-Orangeburg) – View video [ Video times: 18:00 – 23:15; and 1:03:45 – 1:05:55 ]

[ Perhaps the most strident child-murder-by-“abortion” proponent in the SC Senate.  His angry speech directed at a Christian Pro-Personhood Senator was insulting personally and therefore violated the spirit of SC Senate Rule 52, “ Personal Attacks on Senators Not Permitted;…”. Nevertheless, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Luke Rankin took no action to correct this pro-“abortion” Democrat Senator from Orangeburg. Senator Hutto received his J.D. (Law) degree from JESUIT Georgetown University Law Center. ]

4) Senator Kevin Johnson (D-Clarendon) – View video [ Video times: 23:15 – 24:15; and 42:10 – 43:30 ]

5) Senator Gerald Malloy (D-Darlington) – View video [ Video times: 24:15 – 30:50; and 59:15 – 1:00:00; and 1:05:55 – 1:09:00; and 1:11:00 – 1:13:40; and 1:31:50 – 1:34:00; and 1:38:10 – 1:39:40 ]

6) Senator Mia McLeod (D-Richland) – View video [ Video time: 39:25 – 42:10 ]

7) Senator Ronnie Sabb (D-Williamsburg) – View video [ Video time: 46:40 – 54:35 ]

8) Senator Sandy Senn (R-Charleston) – View video [ Video time: 54:40 – 57:10 ]

    “I am a Republican, pro-life [ sic ], and [ Roman ] Catholic.  I do not want to vote against a bill that encourages pro-life, but this bill is so far out of bounds as far as its constitutionality, I don’t think it can be retrieved,…”

9) Senator Marlon Kimpson (D-Charleston) – View video [ Video time: 1:14:35 – 1:24:50 ]

_______________________________
_______________________________

Establishment media errors in reporting on January 30, 2018 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting:

There was erroneous reporting in The State newspaper.  Note how The State newspaper article erroneously reported the FALSE impression that “Personhood” legislation had been passed by other States and already ruled unconstitutional.

The State ( Columbia, SC )
‘Bill to likely ban all abortions delayed in South Carolina’
Jan 30, 2018
http://www.thestate.com/news/state/south-carolina/article197391249.html

Excerpt:

“The bill says life begins at conception, *** and at that moment an embryo has all the rights as any other citizen. **** Several senators, including Republicans, said similarly-worded legislation in other states has been found unconstitutional.*****

________________________________________

*** No the bill does NOT say “life begins at conception” !!!  The word conception is never used in the bill. The bill says the RIGHT to life  (due process, equal protection) is vested at fertilization !!!

**** No, the bill does NOT say an embryo has ALL the rights of another citizen, the bill says (only) the RIGHT to LIFE is vested.  The State article is incorrect about vesture of ALL citizen rights at conception (fertilization). The Personhood bill S .217 as written vests only the right to life at fertilization, not the rights of liberty and property.

***** Missouri (effective 1988) and Kansas ( 2013) passed legislation which would recognize the rights of the unborn to be the same as “other persons”, but subjected their statutes, in the text of the statutes themselves, to the “decisional interpretations … by the United States Supreme Court”, and so child-murder-by-“abortion” continues in Missouri and Kansas to this day.  No State in the U.S.A. has yet passed a real, true Personhood Bill or Amendment.

Further errors or omissions in the article:

1) The 20 co-sponsors of S .217 are not all Republicans, there is one Democrat, so far – Senator Kent Williams.  There should be more, including Senator Darrell Jackson, a pastor, and Senator Glenn Reese, a present or former Baptist deacon.

2) The article fails to mention Gov McMaster, Lt Gov Bryant, and another candidate for SC Gov on 2018, Yancy McGill all spoke at the Personhood Day event Wednesday, January 24 at the SC State House.

3) Lastly, the article does not mention 2018 SC GOP candidate Catherine Templeton does NOT support the Personhood Bill S .217, because she supports “exceptions” to a ban on child-murder, i.e., her un-Biblical, immoral, and unconstitutional position, is to allow the continued murder of certain children in the womb based upon the circumstances of their conception.  By definition therefore, Catherine Templeton is NOT “pro-life”.  Even Webster’s and Black’s Law dictionaries define “Person” as “A human being.”

Personhood Report: In Law, No Exceptions to Human Personhood
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2018/01/30/personhood-report-in-law-no-exceptions-to-human-personhood/

Personhood Report: No Exceptions to Personhood
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2018/01/29/personhood-report-no-exceptions-to-personhood/

(Video) SC Personhood Bill S.217: SC Senator Richard Cash calls for Senate Floor Debate on Personhood Bill

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
January 26, 2018

(Video) SC Personhood Bill S.217:

1) SC Senator Richard Cash calls for Senate Floor Debate on Personhood Bill

2) SC Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday, January 30, 2018 – S.217 listed first on Agenda



‘STANDING IN THE GATE’

SC Senator Richard Cash speaking on Point of Personal Interest [ Re: Calling for Senate floor debate on Personhood Bill ] at Senate podium, Thursday, January 25, 2018

______________________________
______________________________

(Video) SC Personhood Bill S.217:

1) SC Senator Richard Cash calls for Senate Floor Debate on Personhood Bill
______________________________

South Carolina Legislature

Video Archives by meeting time
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php
Select Year:  2018

Thursday, January 25, 2018  11:00 am
Senate — Senate

Senator Richard Cash presentation [ View video from 37:50 – 44:00, approx. six minutes ]

State House, Senate Chamber
Excerpt [ Begin 42:40 ]:

Senator Cash:

“There are many important issues that we will debate in the Senate.  There are some urgent issues that we need to debate, but nothing is more important, and nothing is more urgent, than debating the Personhood Bill.”

“It is not a Republican issue.
It is not a Democratic [sic – Democrat ] issue.
It is not a black issue.
It is not a white issue.
It is not even just a woman’s issue or a man’s issue.
It is fundamentally at its core, a human rights issue.”

“So I ask at the first available opportunity, that we deal with this question:  ‘Who qualifies as a member of the human community, and is deserving of legal protection?’  It is a question that this body needs to debate fully on this Senate floor and to vote on.  Thank you very much.”

_______________________________________

Senator Cash’s remarks to be printed in the permanent record of the Senate Journal, January 25, 2018:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180125.htm#p3

Senator CASH rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.

Remarks to be Printed

On motion of Senator DAVIS, with unanimous consent, the remarks of Senator CASH, when reduced to writing and made available to the Desk, would be printed in the Journal.

_______________________________
_______________________________

2) SC Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday, January 30, 2018 – S.217 listed first on Agenda

Senate Meeting Schedule
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/meetings.php?chamber=S

Tuesday, January 30
11:00 am
— Gressette Room 105 — Judiciary Committee
Agenda Available
Live Broadcast
Live Broadcast – Audio Only

The SC Personhood Bill S.217 is listed first on the SC Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Agenda for Tuesday, January 30, 2018, at 11am in the Senate  Gressette Bldg, Rm 105 (seats approx. 100).
[ The Senate Gressette Bldg is located to immediate rear of the SC State House, on the southwest side. ]

Please come early (recommend 10am) and help pack the room with Christian, Pro-Personhood supporters. As you arrive, recommend you sit as close to the front of the room as possible.  Personhood South Carolina will be providing “PERSONHOOD NOW” stickers at the door of Room 105, which you may place on your lapel.

It is likely Planned Parenthood supporters will be coming as well, and it is important for the 23 Senate members [ 14 R, 9 D ] of the Judiciary Committee to see a strong Pro-Personhood presence  [ Note: Of the 14 Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, only 10 have signed on as co-sponsors of S.217Rice, Turner, Young, Timmons, Talley, Shealy, Goldfinch, Climer, Gambrell, Cash.  [ Note: There are also 10 other co-sponsors of S.217 as well, who are not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, for a total of 20 ( 19 R, 1 D ) S.217 co-sponsors in the SC Senate, which presently consists of 45 ( 27 R, 18 D ) sitting SC Senators. ]

Republican Senate Majority Leader, and Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Massey has not signed on as a S.217 co-sponsor, but has stated he will vote for the bill when he has the opportunity.

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Rankin, and Senator Senn have not yet agreed to support S.217.

Senator Campsen has been a long-time opponent of Personhood legislation ( although when SC Personhood legislation was first introduced in February 1998, then-Representative Campsen was actually a co-sponsor !? ).

________________________________________

Personhood Report: In Law, No Exceptions to Human Personhood

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
January 28, 2018

Personhood Report:

In Law, No Exceptions to Human Personhood

________________________________
________________________________

In both Webster’s Dictionary and Black’s Law Dictionary used by attorneys, the first definition for “Person” is: “A human being.”

Black’s Law Dictionary (2009): Person = “A Human Being”

“person. … 1. A human being. – Also termed natural person.
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2013-12-09-Blacks-Law-Dictionary-Person-3.pdf

So Is or Is Not the developing preborn baby in the womb of a human mother, “A human being.” ?

Yes, of course.  The answer is obvious:


living unborn baby at eight weeks
http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-at-8-weeks-pictures/

________________________________________

This page
[ below ] shows pictures of abortion at 7 weeks.
First, here are some pictures of living unborn babies at 7 weeks:


http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-at-7-weeks/

 

http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-at-7-weeks/

_____________________________________
_____________________________________

Any “Exceptions” to Personhood, and we no longer have Personhood, we no longer have a Personhood Bill.

Either a child in the womb is a human being and therefore a person, or they are not.  There are no “Exceptions” to Human Personhood.

The Black’s Law Dictionary and the Webster’s Dictionary first definition of a “Person”, is “A Human Being” !!!

__________________________________________
__________________________________________

Personhood Legislation was first introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly in February 1998 ( H.4558, S.1060 ), and has been active every year since, including in the current 2017-2018 SC Legislative Session:

2017-2018 Personhood Bills in the SC State Legislature: S.217, H.3530

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina ( 1998 – 2016 )
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2016-11-12-History-of-Personhood-Legislation-in-South-Carolina-1998-2016.pdf

So February 2018 will mark 20 years in which Personhood legislation has been active in the SC State Legislature.

During the 19 years from 1998 to 2017, a SC Personhood Bill passed the full SC House of Representatives ONE TIME, on April 14, 2005, albeit with a fatal flaw so-called “morning-after-pill” rape “exception” amendment which was unfortunately added on the floor of the SC House of Representatives, after the bill ( H .3213 – 52 co-sponsors ) had passed both the Constitutional Laws Subcommittee and the full House Judiciary Committee, without amendment.  There can be no “exceptions” to recognizing the “Personhood” of all human beings at fertilization ( conception ), or we no longer have Personhood [ See also Footnote #54 of 1973 Roe v. Wade Opinion ].

_______________________________________
_______________________________________

Re: Roe v Wade, Footnote #54 – “Life of the Mother”

United States Supreme Court
ROE v. WADE, (1973)
No. 70-18

Argued: December 13, 1971   [ Re-argued October 11, 1972 ]

Decided: January 22, 1973

[ Note: Oral Reargument which focused on the “Personhood” of the preborn human being ( aka “fetus” ) took place October 11, 1972
– Audio here (approx 64 minutes), Transcript here ]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

Roe v Wade, Footnote #54 – Re: “Life of the Mother”
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html#f54


[ Footnote 54 ]
When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists.  The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158]  in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?”  [ emphasis added ]

There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?  [ emphasis added ]

Personhood Report: No Exceptions to Personhood

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
January 27, 2018

Personhood Report:

No Exceptions to Personhood
__________________________________
__________________________________

No Exceptions

Dr. Patrick Johnston, Abortion and Healthcare
https://youtu.be/7uQn6Z0A7eg
Video – 6:18

Dr. Patrick Johnston discusses why doctors might proscribe abortion in cases where the life or health of the mother is in danger.

____________________________________
____________________________________

Pro-Life Without Exception
[ Video documentary of multiple testimonies ]
https://youtu.be/zwazODlTOBk
Video – 58:33

Is abortion helpful in cases of rape or incest?
What about fetal deformity?
What about threats to the life or health of the mother?
Hear the stories of those who have actually been involved in these difficult circumstances.

______________________________________
______________________________________

South Carolina Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing on SC Personhood Bill S.457 – March 13, 2014

Dr. Patrick Johnston, Director, Assn. of Pro-Life Physicians,
Statement S.457 Senate Judiciary Subcomm. Hearing
March 13, 2014

“Abortion – the direct killing of the preborn child – is never necessary to save the mother’s life.”

[ Written statement of Dr. Patrick Johnston introduced during testimony by Dr. Henry Jordan before SC Senate Judiciary Subcommittee at public hearing on SC Personhood Bill S.457 on March 13, 2014 – video (begin 8:00) ]

________________________________________
________________________________________

Life of the Mother “Exception” by American Right to Life

http://americanrtl.org/life-of-the-mother-exception

________________________________________
________________________________________

Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified?

– By Dr. Patrick Johnston, D.O., Dir., Assn. of Pro-Life Physicians
http://prolifephysicians.org/app/?p=59