Category Archives: Legislative Update

[SC] Transcript: Personhood Amendment Ruled Non-Germane to Incremental Child-Murder Regulation ‘Heartbeat’ Bill by Republican Speaker Lucas and Republican Pro Tempore Pope on Point of Order – SC House of Representatives, Columbia, SC – April 24, 2019

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
June 4, 2019

SC House of Representatives
Columbia, SC – April 24, 2019

Transcript: Personhood Amendment Ruled Non-Germane to Incremental Child-Murder Regulation  ‘HeartbeatBill by Republican Speaker Lucas and Republican Pro Tempore Pope on Point of Order – April 24, 2019

Pro-‘Abortion’ [ !!!??? ] SC Rep. Bamberg (D) offers Personhood Amendment to supplant (replace) all the language of H3020 ‘Heartbeat’ Bill with the language of H3920 Personhood Bill

Selectively Pro -‘ Abortion‘ SC Rep. Clary (R) raises Point of Order on Germaneness

_________________________________
_________________________________

Christians for Personhood:

Human Life begins at CONCEPTION NOT HEARTBEAT !!!

Note: The Republican-Super-Majority SC House passed H3020 Heartbeat Bill on Second Reading April 24 with the Mace rape and incest exceptionsAmendment.  The Republican Speaker Lucas and Republican Pro Tempore Pope ruled out of order the Amendment offered by Pro-“Abortion” [ !!!??? ] Rep. Bamberg (D) to adopt the Personhood Amendment with the exact verbatim language of the 2019 Personhood Bill H3920 in place of all the language of the Incremental Child-Murder Regulation HeartbeatBill which bans NO “abortions” before heartbeat detected.  H3020 was passed out of the SC House on Third Reading April 25, and the bill sent to SC Senate, where H3020 was assigned to Medical Affairs Committe April 25.

___________________________________
___________________________________

Excerpt from Transcript below:

Regarding proposed Bamberg Personhood Amendment to Heartbeat Bill [ which the Republican House Speaker and the Republican Speaker Pro Tempore rejected as non-germane, with no vote taken by the SC House on the Appeal that was made challenging the Speaker’s Ruling by Pro-Personhood Rep. Hill (R) ]:

Rep. Bamberg: 
I would, Mr. Speaker, I would definitely agree that the [Personhood] Amendment is broader-based, and I think affords more protections to the unborn fetuses.  It does not specifically speak to the “abortion” procedure, because I think the language as it’s written, would effectively abolish all “abortions”.  [emphasis, word “Personhood” added]

_________________________________
_________________________________

(Photo) ‘I AM A PERSON’ – 7 weeks from conception
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2018/03/13/photo-i-am-a-person-7-weeks-from-conception/

_____________________________
_____________________________

Read (or listen and view below) the words of Pro-“Abortion” Rep. Bamberg (D) as he basically challenges the Republican Super-majority SC House to change “Heartbeat” Bill H3020 completely into the language of Personhood Bill H3920 !!!???

SC House: Personhood Amendment Ruled Non-Germane to Incremental Child-Murder Regulation HeartbeatBill by Republican Speaker Lucas and Republican Pro Tempore Pope on Point of Order – April 24, 2019

( AUDIO ) Rep. Bamberg (D) Amendment No. 2 ( Personhood Bill ) to H3020 Heartbeat Bill
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Floor of SC House of Representatives, SC State House, Columbia, SC

[ Video available at SC Legislature Video Archives,
Wednesday, April 24, 2019  10:00 am
House of Representatives — House of Representatives – Part 2
   Begin at Video time 33:40 ]

___________________________

South Carolina LegislatureArchivesVideo Archives

Wednesday, April 24, 2019  10:00 am
House of Representatives — House of Representatives – Part 2
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php
Video – 2:59:07

[ BEGIN at Video time 33:40 ]

Speaker Lucas:  All right, we’re on Amendment 2.  Mr Bamberg is recognized on the Amendment.

Rep. Bamberg:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This particular amendment, we’ve had ongoing debate here today and throughout committee with regards to “abortions”, and a lot of this stems from the discussion about when life begins, when life doesn’t begin, the science behind it, and there’s discussion with regards to constitutionality, and Roe v. Wade, and when a woman’s right to choose arises, and is there a viability.
This particular bill seeks to cut that down and go off a six-week time in which some say fetal heartbeats can be detected.  What we are proposing in this particular amendment is to, in this State, end the discussion about when life begins, or what constitutes a [sic] unborn child, or what constitutes a fetus or embryo or a zygote.  And we’ve heard time and time again about how important of an issue this is, and that’s one reason why, ya know, those of us have spoken on this, and there have been some heated debates and heated discussions.  What this particular amendment does, effectively changes the bill that is before us, and some may refer to this as “personhood”.  And I want to take a second, and I want to go through this for those of you, there are some other abortion bills that have been filed in the House or in the Senate. There are bills that discuss when a woman has a right to choose and when she doesn’t.  And what this does, it puts, puts that to bed officially.  And what I’m asking this Body to do, is to stand by the political stances that are taken, stand by the religious stances that are taken, and officially, officially protect unborn children, or fetuses, whichever you want to refer to it as, at the moment of conception.  The moment of fertilization is something that everyone understands and everyone can agree with is that, we find ourselves in a position where scientifically speaking …

Speaker Lucas:  Judge [ Rep. ] Clary, for what purpose do you rise ?

Rep. Clary:  Point of Order.

Speaker:  State your point.

Rep. Clary:  Mr Speaker, under Rule 9.3, I do not believe that this amendment is germane. The original bill is talking about a medical procedure, and I don’t know that this is consistent with that bill.

Speaker Lucas:  Mr. Bamberg, I’ll let you respond.

Rep. Bamberg:  Mr. Speaker, if I may.  This, this Amendment is very germane.  I think it is short-sighted, with all due respect to Judge Clary, a good friend of mine.  The bill is not just talking about a procedure.  We are talking about at what point does life begin.  And what the bill seeks to do, is establish that point at the point that a fetal heartbeat can be detected. What the amendment speaks to, is the same thing, it just changes the point in time in which we’re going to consider a fetus alive for purposes of the State having a sufficient interest to say that a woman cannot have an abortion.  That’s all we’re doing.  So my response is that this is absolutely germane based on the language of the bill itself.

Speaker Lucas:  Mr. Bamberg, would you mind if I ask you a few questions ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Of course, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Lucas:  Thank you, thank you, Mr. Bamberg.  Representative Bamberg, I’ve, I’ve read the bill, and I’m unfortunately find myself having to rule on the Personhood Amendment.  And for all disclosure, I am, I am for “personhood”, but the point that Judge Clary raises is germaneness.  I’m reading the bill, and it appears that your Amendment, it appears as three pages of Whereas clauses, and the Whereas clauses, you would agree to me, would not be law, they’re just Whereas clauses, they wouldn’t, if we adopted this, they wouldn’t be included in the, in the Code.  We generally don’t do that, is that correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Mr. Speaker, I, that is, yes as I understand it, but I would note that, I believe the underlying bill itself, contains some form of Whereas …

Speaker Lucas:  Yeah, maybe a little different.

Rep. Bamberg:  Yes sir.

Speaker Lucas:  But the meat of this Amendment would be found on page four, Section 1-1-330 and Section 1-1-340.  That would be the meat of your Amendment, if you take out the Preamble, and the Whereases, and those types of things that lawyers generally deal with.  Is that correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Yes Mr. Speaker, primarily Section 1-1-330 and Section 1-1-340 is the specific law.

Speaker Lucas:  And in those Sections, 1-1-330(B) or 1-1-340, you don’t deal with the issue of “abortion” in those two Sections.  What that appears to be doing, and correct me if I’m wrong, is, is, it makes a legal finding about when certain constitutional rights attach.  Is that correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Mr. Speaker, it does not mention the word “abortion”, but, as it is written, it speaks to the right to life, which is the underlying premise for the fetal Heartbeat Bill, as I understand it, which is the State of South Carolina saying, at the point of a fetal heartbeat, that unborn fetus or child has a right to live, and this Amendment speaks to that.

Speaker Lucas:  It does speak to that, but, but it’s also broader than that.  Would you agree with that statement ?  Because it talks about when certain constitutional rights attach, and those constitutional rights, one of the constitutional rights, which you correctly mentioned was the right to life, the other constitutional rights, one that’s specified, is equal protection of the laws.  Is that correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Lucas:  So it is, it is, it is certainly broader than the bill we’re dealing with today, because whether you’re for or against the bill we’re dealing with today, it is a very long, complex bill dealing with a medical procedure.  Would you say my characterization of that is correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  I would, Mr. Speaker, I would definitely agree that the Amendment is broader-based, and I think affords more protections to the unborn fetuses.  It does not specifically speak to the “abortion” procedure, because I think the language as it’s written, would effectively abolish all “abortions”.  But yeah, it’s way broader, I would definitely agree with that, yes sir.

Speaker Lucas:  And then it’s actually in a, a, and I know this is not dispositive upon my ruling, it’s actually in Section 1 of the Code.  Your Amendment would affect Section 1 of the Code, where if this bill essentially deals with Section 44 of the Code, dealing with medical procedures.  Is that correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Yes, Mr. Speaker, that’s correct.

Speaker Lucas:  And in my deliberations of looking at Rule 9.3, provides that no amendment on a subject different than the one under consideration be permitted.  That’s what the Rule says.  That’s given rise to the “substantial effect” test which Speakers before me have utilized to judge whether amendments to bills under consideration are germane or not.  So, Mr. Bamberg, I’ll listen to, to additional arguments if you have them.
I’m going to take a second after listening to your answers, to look at the bill and look at the Amendment. And you can even consult with counsel if you desire.  You may want to get a better lawyer, but. ..
No, Mr. Stavrinakis is an outstanding lawyer, and I’d certainly respect him on that, but …
Mr. Bamberg, anything further that you wanted to tell me about this while, while I look at it, before I look at it?

Rep. Bamberg:  Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank you for giving me the time to kind of go through this. I’m glad that I don’t have to be cross-examined by you on the witness stand.  But I would just argue again this is, in my opinion, germane.  It is, it is broader than the underlying bill.  While the fetal heartbeat bill does speak to “abortions”, it also talks inherently about when life exists, when it begins, and when the State wants to protect that unborn interest.  And this Amendment speaks to the same thing, and would accomplish, accomplish that, but in a much simpler manner than the underlying bill.

Speaker Lucas:  It, it, it, it, it, I know you understand, I know you do a lot of legal work, certainly personal injury work. We’ve spoken to this issue, on the issue of civil claims, have we not ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Lucas:  And, and actually talked about when civil claims certainly attached based upon, on, on unborn child at what point that’s done, so this is, this is not new territory for us.  Let me, if you would Mr. Bamberg, let me take a look. Those are questions I had.  I’m going to, if the House will stand in recess just a moment.  I’ll take a look at the Amendment and the bill.  I obviously understand this is very important and we want to try to be correct on this. So thank you Mr. Bamberg, and thank you for answering my questions honestly, …

Rep. Bamberg:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Lucas:  … as I knew you would.

SC House of Representatives
IS STANDING AT EASE
[ Video time 45:38 to 46:22 – less than one minute transpires.  It appears the Speaker’s statement below was substantively prepared in advance. ]

Speaker Lucas:  Allright, House’ll, House’ll be in order.  I’ve had the opportunity to examine House Bill 3020 and its provisions, and I’ve also examined Amendment No. 2 as offered by Representative Bamberg. My job as the presiding officer is to determine whether the Amendment relates to the “same subject” or meets the “substantial effect” test as laid out in 9.3 and past House precedent.

The Bill before us, House Bill 3020, is a comprehensive health regulation scheme that governs the delivery of health care to a specific class of patients. The Bill requires identified health care providers to take very specific steps before they are permitted to perform certain procedures. The Bill also specifically prohibit the performance of “abortion” procedures in defined circumstances. The Bill defines the terms as it uses them and applies them within its complex framework.

So the Bill itself is a very specific bill.  The Amendment, however is, is a very general bill.  It does contain a set of legislative findings which would not become law, but the crux of the Amendment would be to declare fertilization as the point that rights would vest, all rights, right to life, due process, equal protection of the law, that those rights would vest upon conception.

And, and, Mr. Bamberg, I agree that it should be the law, but that’s not the issue before us, the issue before us is germaneness.  As I have reviewed the applicable precedent on the application of this Rule, it has been clear that one of the primary considerations by several Speakers before me, as we’ve looked through the precedents book, has been the scope of the underlying legislation.  By your testimony, not by your testimony, but by your very candid answers, you admitted to me, that this Bill is much, much broader than what we’re attempting to deal with today.  At least a dozen times, the Clerk informs me, three separate Speakers have ruled that any amendment that expands the original scope of legislation beyond the subject of the bill is non-germane.  While the issue of healthcare and “abortion” have not been specifically ruled on, distinctions have been made concerning subjects less inclusive [ Note: House Journal for April 24, 2019 says “exclusive” in transcription/paraphrase of Speaker’s remarks ] of one another than the grant of due process to an entire new class of citizens in South Carolina and a comprehensive healthcare regulation.

Therefore, I find Amendment No. 2 exceeds the scope of House Bill 3020 and I sustain Judge [ Rep. ] Clary’s Point of Order, and I find the Amendment out of order.  Clerk will read.

Rep. Hill:  Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Lucas:  Yes, Mr Hill.

Rep. Hill:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Pursuant to House Rule 1.5, I appeal that ruling.

Speaker Lucas:  Thank you, Mr Hill

[ House Journal for April 24, 2019:
“… the SPEAKER called the SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE to the Chair to act as Presiding Officer.” ]

Speaker Lucas vacates the Chair.
Speaker Pro Tem Pope in the Chair.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Ladies and Gentlemen, the Speaker’s ruling concerning germanenesss has been appealed under Rule 1.5.  Any member that wishes to be heard on this matter is, is welcome to come up and speak for no longer than 20 minutes.  Mr. Hill requests that he be heard on this matter.

Rep. Hill:  Thank you Mr. Speaker.  Thank you members.  My point in doing this here is simply, I want to call to your attention, I’m not going to call names here, but I recently heard one of my colleagues quip that germaneness is in the eye of the beholder.  That certainly does seem to be the case with how some rulings come down, sometimes they make sense, sometimes maybe they don’t.  In this case, this is, we’re dealing, we have before us the opportunity to vote on an Amendment, that while worded significantly differently, and inserted into a different point in statute, has the same substantial effect, I believe, of essentially banning all “abortions” in South Carolina.  This Amendment, a personhood approach, I believe does a more
thorough job of that.  And at the very least, I think it should be up to this Body whether, which direction we take on this policy.  And so, I want a chance to vote on it here on the House floor.  That’s, that’s why I made,  that’s why I appealed the ruling.  Thank you.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Mr. McCravy is recognized.

Rep. McCravy:  Thank you Mr. Speaker.  Just briefly, the ruling is correct in my opinion.  You have Title 44 that’s been amended and added to by the bill.  This bill has Section 1-1-330, a completely different part of the Code, because it talks about the rights of an individual, so it’s completely different. I agree, ultimately, with probably the ultimate conclusion of the Personhood Bill, and I’ve signed on to the Personhood Bill, but this, this would be improper to attach it to this bill, and make this bill a completely different bill.  So, I agree with the ruling on it.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Mr. King, Mr King, are you requesting to speak, sir?

Rep King:  Yes sir.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  OK, Mr. King is recognized to speak.  Mr. King.

Rep King:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  And, I would like to say, I would appreciate the opportunity to stand here and speak about this particular Amendment.  It is my understanding that we are here today to debate “abortions” in South Carolina.  The banning, or the beginning to identify, life.  And I’ve heard many colleagues today say that we want to protect life.  And we want to insure that once a lady or a woman is impregnated, that they go full term and have their child.  This gives us that opportunity.  To vote, to say that there is no “abortions’ to be done in South Carolina. So I want to be clear.  You voting against this Amendment, mean that you want to allow “abortions” to happen in South Carolina. You voting for this Amendment means that you want to ban “abortions” in South Carolina.  So I want to say, please understand how you’re voting.  And if this is what you …

Speaker Pro Tem Pope: Mr. King, I apologize, sir.  Mr. King, this is about the appeal as to the Speaker’s ruling. This is not about the Amendment.

Rep. King:  Thank you.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Allright, thank you.  Any further wish to speak on the appeal of the Speaker’s ruling ? Ladies and Gentlemen, Rule [1].5 allows for an appeal on the Speaker’s ruling.  My role as I see it before you is just two-fold.  One, I am to determine whether the Speaker in his judgment, ruling under Rule 9.3 abused his discretion. Second, and again the rules are not clear, so I’m going to hit this both ways; one, whether Speaker Lucas abused his discretion, number two, whether the underlying germaneness ruling was appropriate.  I find first, Mr. Hill, that he did not abuse his discretion.  I look also at the fact that he considered applicable precedent in the application of this rule, and that his ruling has a founding basis both in precedent, and in the law as presented before us.  Therefore, I find that he did not abuse his discretion.  Also that the, the ruling as to germaneness was appropriate, and that is my ruling.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Mr Hill is recognized.

Rep. Hill:  Thank you, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  It, this is a point of parliamentary inquiry, I guess you would say. It is my understanding that, under parliamentary procedure that appealing, or appealing the ruling of the Chair would result in a vote.  Can you clarify if that is indeed the process ?

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Under the Rules as I’ve seen them Mr. Hill, I have seen no indication it requires a vote.  I think it requires me to make a decision.  I’ve made that decision sir.  Thank you.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope vacates the Chair.
Speaker Lucas in the Chair.

Speaker Lucas:  We’re on Amendment No. 3.  Clerk’ll read.

[ END at Video time 57:28 ]

________________________
________________________

SC Senate approves Section 33 (DHHS) of State Budget (H4000) even though it contains PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING:

Published by:

Columbia Christians for Life ( CCL )
aka Christians for Life and Liberty ( CLL )
Columbia, South Carolina
April 25, 2019

April 18 Columbia, SC

SC Senate approves Section 33 (DHHS) of State Budget ( H4000) even though it contains PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING:


Note: Prior to April 25 Revision, this Report initially sent out by text on April 24; the SC Senate gave Third Reading approval to SC State Budget for FY 2019-2010 on April 18; H4000 sent back to SC House

Note: This SC DHHS funding of Planned Parenthood is NOT directly for surgical or RU-486 “abortions”, but for so-called “family planning funds”, which may include chemically abortifacient “birth control”. Any government (taxpayer) money given to Planned Parenthood helps sustain their operation as a
child-murder center.  Two of the three stand alone child-murder centers remaining in South Carolina are operated by Planned Parenthood [ located in Charleston and Columbia ].
_______________________
_______________________


[ Revised 4/25/2019 ]

As reported previously (see below), on April 18, the SC Senate adopted revised version of ineffective Proviso 33.25 as proposed in Senator Cash Amdt No. 79, still ineffective insofar as stopping Planned Parenthood funding for now, and so FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD REMAINED IN THE BUDGET (within Section 33).

(Search for “No. 79”):

SC Senate Journal for 4/18/2019
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess123_2019-2020/sj19/20190418.htm

Previous report:

April 18
Columbia, SC
SC Senate continues SC DHHS funding of Planned Parenthood for now; adopts still ineffective revised version of ineffective Proviso 33.25, without adopting Governor’s effective Proviso 33.24

Then on April 18, when it came time for the SC Senate to start finishing up debate on budget, and final voting on all the complete Sections took place, the SC Senate approved Section 33 (DHHS), PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING and all, as follows:

Ayes 25; Nays 19

AYES (Total – 25)

Republicans (8): Alexander, Campbell, Gambrell, Goldfinch, Gregory, Leatherman, Rankin, Senn

Democrats (17): Allen, Fanning, Harpootlian, Jackson, Johnson, Kimpson, Malloy, J. Matthews, M. Matthews, McElveen, McLeod, Nicholson, Reese, Sabb, Scott, Setzler, Sheheen

NAYS (Total – 19)

Republicans (19): Bennett, Campsen, Cash, Climer, Corbin, Cromer, Davis, Grooms, Hembree, Loftis, Martin, Massey, Peeler, Rice, Shealy, Talley, Turner, Verdin, Young

Section 33 was adopted.

(Search for “Section 33”):

SC Senate Journal for 4/18/2019
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess123_2019-2020/sj19/20190418.htm

So the ineffective Cash Amdt (No. 79) was adopted April 18, without adopting Governor McMaster’s effective Proviso 33.24; and then the whole of Section 33, WITH THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING, was approved April 18, by 25 – 19 vote.

Proverb 16:6b, KJV

Columbia Christians for Life
ChristianLifeandLiberty .net

SC Senate approves Section 108 (PEBA) of State Budget (H4000) even though it contains State-funding of certain “abortions” in State Health Insurance Plan:

Published by:

Columbia Christians for Life ( CCL )
aka Christians for Life and Liberty ( CLL )
Columbia, South Carolina
April 22, 2019

April 18 Columbia, SC

SC Senate approves Section 108 (PEBA) of State Budget (H4000) even though it contains State-funding of certain “abortions” in State Health Insurance Plan:

Note: This Report initially sent out by text on April 21-22; the SC Senate gave Third Reading approval to SC State Budget for FY 2019-2010 on April 18; H4000 sent back to SC House
______________________
______________________

[ Edited ]

As reported previously (see below), on April 17, the SC Senate tabled Senator Cash’s Amdt to budget (No. 22) to stop funding certain “abortions” in State Health Insurance Plan, by vote of 24 Ayes – 21 Nays (with Gregory, Leatherman, Massey,  Rankin, and Senn joining all 19 Dem’s to table), and so the funding for these certain “abortions” REMAINED IN THE BUDGET (within Section 108).

(Search for “No. 22”):

SC Senate Journal for 4/17/2019
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess123_2019-2020/sj19/20190417.htm

Previous report:

(SC) Wed., April 17, 2019
Re: SC Senate votes against stopping State-funding of certain “abortions” through SC State Health Insurance Plan (PEBA)

(report posted on ‘Personhood Act’ page of ChristianLifeandLiberty.net as #164.)
—–

Then on April 18, when it came time for the SC Senate to start finishing up debate on budget, and final voting on all the complete Sections took place, the SC Senate approved  Section 108 (PEBA), “abortion” funding and all. Section 108 was approved as follows:

Ayes 37; Nays 6; Abstain 1

AYES (Total – 37)

Republicans (20): Alexander, Bennett, Campbell, Campsen, Corbin, Cromer, Davis, Gambrell, Goldfinch, Gregory, Hembree, Leatherman, Loftis, Martin, Peeler, Rankin, Shealy, Talley, Turner, Young

Democrats (17): (all Democrats except Hutto and Williams on leave)
—–

NAYS (Total – 6)

Republicans (6): Cash, Climer, Grooms, Massey, Rice, Verdin
—–

ABSTAIN (1)

Republican (1): Senn
—–

Section 108 was adopted.

(Search for “Section 108”):

SC Senate Journal for 4/18/2019
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess123_2019-2020/sj19/20190418.htm
—–

So the Cash Amdt (No. 22) was tabled April 17, by 24 – 21 vote; then the whole of Section 108, WITH THE  “ABORTION” FUNDING, was approved April 18, by 37 – 6 – 1 vote.
—–

Proverbs 6:16,17, KJV

Columbia Christians for Life
ChristianLifeandLiberty .net

 

SC Senate votes against stopping State-funding of certain “abortions” through SC State Health Insurance Plan (PEBA)

Published by:

Columbia Christians for Life ( CCL )
aka Christians for Life and Liberty ( CLL )
Columbia, South Carolina
April 18, 2019 / Correction/Revision February 27, 2020


(SC) Wed., April 17, 2019

SC Senate votes against stopping State-funding of rape, incest, and some ( but not all ) so-called life-of-the-mother “abortions” ***  through the SC State Health Insurance Plan (PEBA)

*** This Correction/Revision is necessary because:

1) As written, the Amendment No. 22 proposed on April 17, 2019 to stop State-funding of certain “abortions” would not have stopped all “abortions” had it been adopted; and

2) The fact that State-funding of all “abortions” would not have been stopped by Amendment No. 22, as written, was inadequately reported and incorrectly evaluated by Columbia Christians for Life back on April 18, 2019.  The intent of this Correction/Revision is to correct that error, and to give a much-needed clarification to the “abortion” debate in SC on what has been a difficult subject to both comprehend and articulate, i.e., the so-called life-of-the-mother “exception” [sic] to a ban on “abortion”.  Such an “exception” [sic] does not exist.


Note: This Report initially sent out by text on April 17, 2019; the SC Senate is still debating  SC State Budget for FY 2019-2010 (H.4000) as of April 18, 2019

_____________________

_____________________

[ Edited ]

Amendment (No. 22) offered by Senator Cash to stop State-funding of rape, incest, and some ( but not all ) so-called life-of-the-mother
“abortions” in State Health Insurance Plan was tabled (defeated) by vote of 24 to 21 on April 17 in the “REPUBLICAN”-majority Senate (27 R – 19 D).

These five “REPUBLICANS” [sic] below voted to table the Cash Amendment designed to stop State-funding of rape, incest, and some ( but not all ) so-called life-of-the-mother child-murders by “abortion” in the State Health Insurance Plan (PEBA) in the FY 2019-2020 SC State Budget:

– Sen Greg Gregory

– Sen Hugh Leatherman
(Finance Comm Chairman)

– Sen Shane Massey
(Majority “Leader”)

– Sen Luke Rankin
(Judiciary Comm Chairman)

– Sen Sandy Senn
—–

ALL 19 Democrats also voted to table Cash Amdt No.22,
including:

– Sen Darrell Jackson
(“pastor”)

– Sen Glenn Reese

– Sen Kent Williams

___________________________

(Search for “No. 22”)

SC Senate Journal for 4/17/2019
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess123_2019-2020/sj19/20190417.htm

Amendment No. 22

Senator CASH proposed the following amendment (4000R001.KMM.RJC.DOCX), which was tabled:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, Part IB, Section 108, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE BENEFIT AUTHORITY, page 466, proviso 108.4, by striking the proviso in its entirety, and inserting /   108.4. (PEBA: Funding Abortions Prohibited)
No funds appropriated for employer contributions to the State Health Insurance Plan may be expended to reimburse the expenses of an abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or where the mother’s medical condition is one which, on the basis of the physician’s good faith judgment, so complicates the pregnancy as to necessitate an immediate abortion to avert the risk of her death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function in which the life of the mother is at risk and the termination of the pregnancy is incidental to the lifesaving intervention, and the State Health Plan may not offer coverage for abortion services, including ancillary services provided
contemporaneously with abortion services or services incidental to abortion except as permitted by this provision.
Physicians shall act in accordance with the standard of care to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of the pre-born child. The Public Employee Benefit Authority must determine the amount of the total premium paid for health coverage necessary to cover the risks associated with reimbursing participants in the plan for obtaining an abortion in the circumstances covered by this provision. The determination must be based on actuarial data and empirical study in the same manner and by the same method that other risks are adjusted for in similar circumstances. The plan must report this determination annually to the respective Chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee./

____________________________

Here is the beginning of the flawed language in Amendment No. 22 above:

“No funds appropriated for employer contributions to the State Health Insurance Plan may be expended to reimburse the expenses of an abortion, exceptin which the life of the mother is at risk and the termination of the pregnancy is incidental to the lifesaving intervention, …”  [ emphasis added ]

A significant part of what is problematic about the Amendment No. 22 language is that “abortions” are never “incidental” to a medically necessary life-saving procedure/intervention.  Use of the term “abortion” is erroneous because a truly medically necessary life-saving procedure/intervention ( e.g., in the case of a medically necessary removal of an ectopic pregnancy to prevent severe hemorrhaging ) is not an “abortion”.

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

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

“Abortion” is the direct, intentional killing of the preborn child.  See the definition of “Abortion” in the SC Code of Laws, Title 44, Chapter 41, below:

“SECTION 44-41-10. Definitions. As used in this chapter: (a) “Abortion” means the use of an instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device with intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant for reasons other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus.”
[ emphasis added ]

_____________________________

“Abortion” is Murder because it has the purpose of intentionally destroying the unborn child.

Furthermore, there are no exceptions to the Biblical ban on murder ( Exodus 20:13, KJV ).

See “ No Exceptions” tab at ChristiansforPersonhood.com

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

Christians for Personhood
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/

_____________________

Notes:

1) All 46 SC Senate seats are up for Re-election in 2020, beginning with Primaries in June 2020.

2) Based upon the voting records/positions of the 24 Senators (5 R, 19 D) voting to “Table” Cash Amendment No. 22, all 24 (5 R, 19 D) of these SC Senators who voted today against stopping State-funding of rape, incest, and some ( but not all ) so-called life-of-the-mother child-murders in the State Health Insurance Plan (PEBA) did so because they do not want to ban even only just State-funding of rape and incest “abortions”, not because they had any principled pro-life objection to not also banning State-funding of all so-called life-of-the-mother “abortions”.  So, in principle, their vote may not be able to be scored, since Amendment No. 22 itself was flawed; however, properly evaluated, their vote is certainly instructive: These Senators did not want to ban even only just State-funding of rape and incest “abortions”, and they deserve opposition next year at the polls, especially PRIMARY opposition against the five “REPUBLICANS” [sic] in June 2020.  See scstatehouse .gov, click on “Senators” and then each Member to identify the location of each Senate District of these 24 SC Senators who voted today to continue funding the shedding of innocent blood of preborn children at the expense of SC taxpayers.

__________________________

The SC Senate meets @ 9:30am Thurs., April 18, 2019 to continue debate on the SC State Budget [ FY 2019-2020 ].

__________________________

Hosea 4:2, KJV

Hosea 4:6, KJV

Ezekiel 35:6, KJV

Columbia Christians for Life
ChristianLifeandLiberty .net

____________________

CCL Note:  All content below until the beginning of the original e-mail as sent out on April 18, 2019 has been added as of this February 27, 2020 Correction/Revision:

There are no exceptions to the Biblical ban on murder ( Exodus 20:13, KJV ).

See “ No Exceptions” tab at ChristiansforPersonhood .com

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

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

IT IS NEVER NECESSARY TO INTENTIONALLY DESTROY THE UNBORN CHILD TO SAVE THE MOTHER’S  LIFE; THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO SAVE THE LIVES OF BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE CHILD, AND LEAVE THE RESULTS  IN THE HANDS OF GOD, BUT NEVER, TO INTENTIONALLY KILL EITHER THE MOTHER OR THE CHILD.  GOD SAYS, “THOU SHALT NOT KILL (MURDER).”  EXODUS 20:13, KJV

NOTE: PREMATURE DELIVERY OF AN UNBORN CHILD TO SAVE THE MOTHER’S LIFE IS NOT AN “ABORTION”. LIKEWISE, MEDICALLY NECESSARY REMOVAL OF AN  ECTOPIC PREGNANCY IS NOT AN “ABORTION”.  IN NEITHER OF THESE TWO CASES, OR IN SIMILAR CASES, IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PROCEDURE TO INTENTIONALLY DESTROY THE UNBORN CHILD.  THESE ARE NOT “ABORTIONS”.  UNINTENTIONAL LOSS OF THE CHILD’S LIFE IN THESE CASES MAY BE CONCOMITANT WITH A TRULY MEDICALLY NECESSARY LIFE-SAVING PROCEDURE/INTERVENTION WHOSE INTENDED PURPOSE IS NEVER THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF THE UNBORN CHILD; HOWEVER THESE ARE NOT ‘ABORTIONS”.

__________________
__________________

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.

Thomas Smith, Ectopic Pregnancy Survivor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Wd5PaUWk8
Video – 3:56

___________________
___________________

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) ]  [ Video unavailable ]

______________
______________

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://mucciolo.net/app/?p=59

_____________
_____________

Does an ectopic pregnancy justify intentionally killing the baby?
by Dr. Patrick Johnston, D.O., Dir., Assn. of Pro-Life Physicians
https://www.clmagazine.org/topic/medicine-science/does-an-ectopic-pregnancy-justify-intentionally-killing-the-baby/

_____________
_____________

Christians for Personhood
No Exceptions
https://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/no-exceptions/

_____________
_____________

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

_________________
_________________

Christians for Personhood
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/

(SC) Alert: Planned Parenthood Funding in SC State Budget; Full Senate Finance Committee meets beginning Tues., April 2nd

Published by:

Columbia Christians for Life
March 27, 2019

Please call the 13 Republicans on the 23-member Senate Finance Committee and tell them to remove the ineffective SC House Proviso 33.25 which allows Planned Parenthood funding for now to CONTINUE***; and to instead add SC Governor McMaster’s effective Proviso 33.24 which zeroes out  federal dollars for “family planning” and thus prevents any of these federal dollars from going to Planned Parenthood. Governor McMaster’s Proviso 33.24 would also prohibit state dollars from going to any of South Carolina’s three remaining (down from 12 in 1988) child-murder by “abortion” genocide centers, two of which are Planned Parenthood affiliates.

***The ineffective SC House Proviso 33.25 links to a federal court injunction against a 2018 Executive Order by Governor McMaster.

However, Governor McMaster’s effective 2019 Proviso 33.24 uses a different legal strategy than the one employed in his 2018 Executive Order. What the SC House passed on March 12 does nothing to stop Planned Parenthood funding now !

These are the 13 Republicans to call on Senate Finance Committee – they have the power to stop the Planned Parenthood funding now. Their contact info is at scstatehouse.gov – click on “Senators”:

Leatherman, Peeler, Grooms, Cromer, Davis, Gregory, Corbin, Alexander, Verdin, Campbell, Martin, Bennett, Hembree.

These three Democrats should be called also:

Reese, Jackson, Williams.

Please call beginning this evening Wednesday 3/27, through Tuesday 4/2.

——-

Governor McMaster’s effective Planned Parenthood defunding Proviso 33.24
(page down to page 327):
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess123_2019-2020/appropriations2019/GOVPartIB.pdf

SC House ineffective Planned Parenthood defunding Proviso 33.25 (page down to Proviso 33:25):
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess123_2019-2020/appropriations2019/hpp1b.htm#s33

——-

Thank you.

Columbia Christians for Life