Revised June 28, 2021
I understand there has been quite a bit of discussion online recently addressing the subjects of Personhood and the Abolitionist’s approach.
Let me begin by stating, Personhood is abolition. Here in South Carolina, we have advocated passage of State personhood legislation continuously for the last 19 years since 1998 [ History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina ( 1998 – 2016 ) ].
South Carolina Personhood legislation recognizes the Creator God-given, unalienable right to life of every human being as a “person” beginning at fertilization, in SC law.
In my opinion, we will need to pass Personhood legislation, and then we will very likely need interposition of Lesser Magistrates to enforce it once the law is codified and on the books if the passage of Personhood legislation occurs first at the State level.
Personhood and Interposition are NOT mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary.
The way I see it, Personhood is needed first to establish contemporaneous statutory or State constitutional legal legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens of whatever State jurisdiction is involved which has determined in their day, to take a righteous stand against child-murder; and then interposition of Lesser Magistrates would likely be needed to enforce it ( keeping in mind none have so far enforced marriage though over 30 States have constitutional bans against sodomite/lesbian so-called “marriage” [ sic ] ).
If Federal Personhood legislation is passed, such as US Rep. Jody Hice’s ( R-GA ) re-introduction of his ( formerly US Rep. Paul Broun’s ) bill, HR 586 [ without Creator-denying “species homo sapiens” term ! ] (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/586), then perhaps interposition by State officials would not be necessary. If however, SCOTUS “Justices” further violate their Oaths and Constitutional function by overthrowing legislation such as HR 586, there is the further step available of US Constitution, Article III, Section 2 legislation in which the US Congress has the authority and power to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, such as in HR 2761 which was introduced in the 114th Congress (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2761/text).
For those opposed to Personhood efforts, I wonder how many have listened to, or read the transcript of, the October 11, 1972 Second Oral Argument of Roe v Wade, where the “basic constitutional question, initially“, “critical to this case“, was [ and is ] whether or not an unborn child is recognized in law as a “person”. Once that is done, then the matter becomes legally inarguable; establishing legal recognition of the Creator God-given unalienable right to life of all human beings here in the United States, according to our Federal and State Constitutions, beginning at fertilization, with no “exceptions”.
It is simple, short legislation, applying a present day, inarguably recognizable legal standard, if there is the WILL to do it !
October 11, 1972 Second Oral Argument of Roe v Wade
Audio – http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/reargument
[ with moving transcript ]
Posting and excerpts below from www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net website [edited]:
[ Posted on the ‘Personhood Act’ page as Item #117. ]
- 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
“PERSONHOOD” is the key to ENDING child-murder-by-“abortion”. A plain reading of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US 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 recognized for “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
THE KEY, BASIC, AND INITIAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN ROE V. WADE (1973), CRITICAL TO THE CASE, WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE “FETUS” ( PRE-BIRTH HUMAN BEING ), WOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN LAW AS A LEGAL “PERSON”:
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 ]
Pass Personhood now !
Jesus Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords;” ( 1 Timothy 6:15, KJV )
exec. dir., Christians for Personhood
PO Box 12222
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
March 15, 2017 / Revised June 28, 2021