Category Archives: Personhood Report

Glory to God ! – SC PERSONHOOD ACT (S.217) passes full Senate Judiciary Committee favorably by 12Y – 9N vote – February 20, 2018

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
February 25, 2018



Glory to God !
SC PERSONHOOD ACT ( S .217) passes full Senate Judiciary Committee favorably by 12Y – 9N vote – February 20, 2018
____________________________
____________________________

S.217 SC Personhood Bill PRAISE REPORTGLORY TO GOD !  S.217 favorably passed by SC Senate Judiciary Committee as Amended ( without “exceptions” ) on Tuesday, February 20. The vote was 12 Y – 9 N, and one abstention, and one absence without proxy ( total of 23 members on Senate Judiciary Committee – 14 R, 9 D ). The LORD did a marvelous work today, responding to the prayers of His people, and using His servant Senator Richard Cash, who was the chief spokesman for the bill in a tremendous way, as Senator Cash responded to the points of attack on the Personhood Bill by several Democrats and one “Republican”.  S.217 SC Personhood Bill primary sponsor Senator Rex Rice also stepped up and made important parliamentary moves at the end of the meeting when the actual voting took place.

Let’s give thanks to the LORD for what HE has done, as HE worked through even the confusion, and repeated votes, and repeated vote counts at the end of the meeting, to bring this favorable result, and place the bill, as amended with a principled amendment, on the Senate calendar.

Now we need to pursue Special Order status for S.217 so that it will actually be debated on the floor of the Senate. Please now contact the Republican Senators in the SC Senate ( http://www.scstatehouse.gov ) and urge them to advocate among their Republican Senate colleagues for Special Order status for S.217.

Praise God for what HE did this day, February 20, 2018 !

________________________________
________________________________



Eleven Republican Senators raised their hands on this Third of three repeated votes in favor of Motion for a Favorable Report [ as Amended ] of S.217 Personhood Act of SC out of SC Senate Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, February 20, 2018, at 1:12 pm [ 1:52:55 video time ].
L to R, beginning with back row:
Senators Young, Shealy, Rankin
(raised hand obscured in photo above, visible on video ***), Massey, Turner [ back row ]
Senators Cash, Gambrell, Climer, Goldfinch, Rice, Talley [ front row ]
[ Plus, Senator Cash announced he had proxy vote for Senator Timmons ]

TOTAL: 12 Yes votes, for Favorable Passage [ as  Amended ]

*** Note: On the first two votes conducted on the Motion for a Favorable Report, Judiciary Committee Chairman Luke Rankin vote AGAINST Favorable Passage [ First vote of three votes: 1:51:00 video time; Second vote of three votes: 1:51:55 video time ].  Therefore, it appears by exercising his authority and power as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Rankin was able to conduct multiple re-votes on the same Motion, and changed his vote after he learned Senator Senn was abstaining ( which meant there would not be sufficient votes to defeat the measure ).  So on the Third vote of the three votes [ 1:52:55 video time ], Senator Rankin changed the way he had just voted twice, and voted for Favorable Passage.  This is all visible on the video of this series of three re-votes on the Motion for Favorable Passage, beginning at 1:50:25 video time.

________________________________
________________________________

South Carolina Legislature [ Video ]

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

Tuesday, February 20, 2018  11:00 am
Senate Judiciary Committee — Full Judiciary

Agenda

Gressette Senate Office Building, Room 105
SC State House complex
Video – 1:54:05

[ Note: Meeting began late (11:19 am) and took up a different bill first; Committee deliberation on SC Personhood Bill S.217 began 11:43 am (24:00 video time), and continued until 1:13 pm (1:54:00 video time)  [ 1 1/2 hrs spent on S.217 ]

_______________________________
_______________________________




Nine Democrat Senators raised their hands on this Third of three repeated votes opposed to Motion for a Favorable Report [ as Amended ] of S.217 Personhood Act of SC out of SC Senate Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, February 20, 2018, at 1:13 pm [ 1:53:10 video time ].
L to R, beginning with back row:
Senators Sabb, Johnson, Hutto
(raised hand at right angle to camera view, more visible on video), Malloy, McElveen, Kimpson, Bright Matthews [ back row ]
Senators McLeod, Fanning [ front row ]

TOTAL: 9 No votes, against Favorable Passage [ as  Amended ]

______________________________
______________________________

– The SC Personhood Act ( S .217) passed favorably, as Amen ded, by a vote of 12 Yes to 9 No, out of the full SC Senate Judiciary Committee, on Tuesday, February 20, shortly after 1 pm.

12 Yes [ all Republicans ]
Cash, Climer, Gambrell, Goldfinch, Massey, Rankin**** , Rice, Shealy, Talley, Timmons, Turner, Young

9 No [ all Democrats ]
Fanning, Hutto, Johnson, Kimpson, Malloy, Bright Matthews, McElveen, McLeod, Sabb

… plus one abstention ( Senn (R)**** ), and plus one absent without proxy ( Campsen (R)**** ).
[ Total of 23 Senators on Senate Judiciary Committee ( 14 R, 9 D ).

Prior to the three separate ( repeated ) votes on the Motion for Favorable Passage of S.217, as Amended, there were three other matters voted upon earlier **** [ Begin 1:42:30 video time ]:

1) On the friendly AmendmentAdopted 12 – 10 [ Senn joining 11 Republicans, Rankin joining 9 Democrats ]

2) On (Rice) Motion to Table the (Senn) Motion to Recommit ( Bury / Kill ) the Bill to Subcommittee: Failed on 11 to 11 tie vote [ Rankin and Senn joining 9 Democrats ]

3) On (Senn) Motion to Recommit ( Bury / Kill ) the Bill to Subcommittee: Failed on 11 to 11 tie vote [ Rankin and Senn joining 9 Democrats ]


**** Chairman Rankin first voted against the friendly Amendment proposed by supporters of S.217; then he voted against the Motion to Table the Motion to Recommit; and then he voted for the Motion to Recommit.  So in other words, Rankin voted with the nine pro-“abortion” Democrats against the friendly Amendment offered by five Republican Senators ( including the primary sponsor of S.217, Rex Rice, and the chief spokesman, Richard Cash ) supporting the Personhood Act; and then Rankin voted twice with the nine pro-“abortion” Democrats and with one of Charleston’s “Republican” S.217 Personhood opponents Sandy Senn, to send ( bury / kill ) S.217 back into the Subcommitte.

The (Rice) Motion to Table the (Senn) Motion to Recommit had failed 11-11, and the Motion to Recommit had failed 11-11, and so things did not look good for the final Motion on Favorable Passage to succeed.  Pro-“abortion” Senator Malloy (D) then made a Motion for Favorable Passage [ 1:50:08 video time ] so the vote would be taken at that time.  If that Motion failed 11-11 also, that meant the S.217 Personhood bill would fail to be passed favorably out of Committee.

However, on the voting on the Motion for Favorable Passage of S.217, as amended, Charleston “Republican”, S.217 Personhood opponent, Sandy Senn, was abstaining.  This vote on the Motion for Favorable Passage of S.217, as amended, was taken by Chairman Rankin THREE SEPARATE TIMESOn the first two votes conducted on the Motion for a Favorable Report, Judiciary Committee Chairman Luke Rankin vote AGAINST Favorable Passage.
[ First vote of three votes: 1:51:00 video time; Second vote of three votes: 1:51:55 video time ].  On the Third vote of the three votes [
1:52:55 video time ], Senator Rankin changed the way he had just voted twice, and voted for Favorable Passage.  This is all visible on the video of this series of three re-votes on the Motion for Favorable passage, beginning at 1:50:25 video time.

[ Begin video 1:52:00 ]

Senator Luke Rankin ( after the first two of three votes on the Motion for Favorable Passage, As Amended ):
“Did anybody abstain from voting on the last vote?”

Senator Sandy Senn:
“I did.  Mr Chairman, I did because if we’re moving the entire bill forward, I cannot go with it as is, because it’s, in my view, unconstitutional. So without my further amendments, and other amendments, I’m gonna have to abstain … I don’t wanna vote, I don’t wanna vote against a pro-life measure, and I’ve already said that, but as is, this one, is totally, in my view, unconstitutional.  So, rather than vote against a pro-life measure, I will abstain.”

Senator Luke Rankin
“Allright … appreciate that Senator.  We gonna do this vote again [ Note: Third time ].  All those in favor of the Motion for a Favorable report, let’s see a show of hands … [ continued ]

       Therefore, it appears by exercising his authority and power as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Rankin was able to conduct multiple re-votes on the same Motion, and changed his vote after he learned Senator Senn was abstaining ( which meant there would not be sufficient votes to defeat the Motion for Favorable Passage, as Amended ).

With Charleston “Republican” Sandy Senn abstaining, and with the other Charleston “Republican” S.217 Personhood opponent, Chip Campsen, absent without proxy, even if Rankin continued to vote against Favorable Passage, his negative vote would not have been able to stop the bill from being reported favorably out of the Judiciary Committee.  So instead, the slippery, serpentine Luke Rankin now, on the Third vote of three repeated votes in favor of Motion for a Favorable Report [ as Amended ] changed his negative vote in opposition which he had just cast twice in the last couple of minutes or so,
       and now voted in favor of the Motion for Favorable Passage of S.217, as amended with the other 11 Republicans voting in favor of S.217 Personhood, resulting in an official final vote on Favorable Passage of 12 Yes to 9 No ( instead of 11 Yes to 10 No, if Rankin had again voted against S.217, as he had done on all his previous votes ! ).

It should be noted also, in Judiciary Committee Chairman Rankin’s announcement of the result of that THIRD vote taken on the Motion for Favorable Passage of S.217 as amended, he said, “11 to 9, the Bill is reported out favorably, as amended” [ SC Legislature archive video, video time 1:53:30, Tuesday, February 20, 2018  11:00 am, Senate Judiciary Committee — Full Judiciary ], that 11 to 9 count does not take into account his own vote[ Only takes into account the 11 Republican S.217 Personhood Bill supporters, and the 9 Democrat S.217 Personhood Bill opponents, and Senn’s abstention, and Campsen’s absence without proxy ].  So Chairman Rankin announced a vote of 11 – 9 in the Committee, however the official Senate Judiciary Committee Minutes read “the bill was reported out favorable with amendment 12 – 9“, which 12 – 9 vote result is correct.

[ Conway, Myrtle Beach, Horry County voters, please remember this in June 2020, in the next Republican SC Senate Primary !!! ]

___________________________

Summary analysis of four votes taken [ the last vote was actually taken three different times ! ]:

Basically, there was a block of 11 Republican supporters who always voted favorably for the bill; and there was another block of 9 Democrat opponents who always voted in opposition to the bill.

Then there was Senator Sandy Senn ( R – Charleston ), who voted “for” the friendly Amendment; but then voted twice in favor of Recommitting ( burying / killing ) the Bill to Subcommittee; and then, on the last vote for Favorable Passage, she chose to Abstain, rather than vote against a pro-life bill.

Finally, there was the crafty, serpentine Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Luke Rankin ( RINO – Horry ), who voted “against” the friendly Amendment with the 9 Democrat pro-“abortion” Senators; and then, like Sandy Senn, voted twice ( again with the 9 Democrat pro-“abortion” Senators ), in favor of Recommitting ( burying / killing ) the Bill to Subcommittee.

Then, using his power as Chairman to conduct
THREE SEPARATE VOTES on the final Motion for Favorable Passage of the bill, as Amended, Chairman Rankin actually voted AGAINST the bill on the first two of these three repeated votes on the same Motion for Favorable Passage, as Amended. THEN, after learning Senn was abstaining, Senator Rankin CHANGED HIS VOTE and voted for
Favorable Passage, as Amended.  In Committee, Senator Rankin erroneously announced the vote was 11 – 9, not accounting for his own vote.  However, in the official  Minutes of the Committee Meeting, the official final vote was recorded as 12 – 9, and indicating Rankin voted Yes for the bill’s passage.

It appears after Senator Sandy Senn abstained, and the votes were not there anyway to prevent the Motion for Favorable Passage, as Amended, from succeeding, Senator Rankin chose not to be the only “Republican” [ sic ] on the Judiciary Committee to vote against the SC Personhood Act S .217 in a failed effort to prevent Favorable Passage.

_________________________________
_________________________________

Attendees in SC Senate Gressette Building Committee Room 105 prior to start of February 20, 2018 Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting with Personhood Act of SC ( S .217) on the Agenda

__________________________________

Attendees in SC Senate Gressette Building Committee Room 105 prior to (late) start of February 20, 2018 Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting with Personhood Act of SC ( S .217) on the Agenda   ( scheduled to begin 11 am )

___________________________________


After Adjournment of Senate Judiciary Committee:

___________________________________

SC Senate Gressette Bldg Rm 105, following Favorable Passage of S217 Personhood Bill, as Amended, out of Senate Judiciary Committee
Charles Butler, Senator Richard Cash, Eva Edl, Kathy Gardner, Johnny Gardner
Tuesday, Feb 20, 2018
Praise the LORD !

[ Note: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Luke Rankin (RINO – Horry) with his hand on his head in background on left – this photo was taken at 1:14pm, just one minute after adjournment of the meeting at 1:13 pm. ]

___________________________________

SC Senate Gressette Bldg Rm 105, following Favorable Passage of S217 Personhood Bill, as Amended, out of Senate Judiciary Committee
Johnny Gardner, Steve Lefemine, Senator Richard Cash, Charles Butler
Tuesday, Feb 20, 2018
Praise the LORD !

_________________________________



SC Senate Gressette Bldg Rm 105, following Favorable Passage of S217 Personhood Bill, as Amended, out of Senate Judiciary Committee
Johnny Gardner, Kathy Gardner, Senator Richard Cash, Charles Butler
Tuesday, Feb 20, 2018
Praise the LORD !

______________________

______________________

– The SC Personhood Bill ( S .217) was reported out to the full SC Senate the next day,
Wednesday, February 21:

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Senator RANKIN from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

S. 217 ( Word version) — Senators Bryant, Rice, Cromer, Martin, Corbin, Verdin, Turner, Young, Timmons, Davis, Talley, Shealy, Grooms, Peeler, Goldfinch, Climer, Gambrell, Williams, Gregory, Cash and Hembree: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT GENERALLY, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5, TO ENACT THE PERSONHOOD ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO ESTABLISH THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN BEING VESTS AT FERTILIZATION AND THAT THE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE, VEST AT FERTILIZATION FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN BEING.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

____________________________
____________________________

– The SC Personhood Bill ( S .217) appeared on the calendar of the full SC Senate,
Thursday, February 22:

CALENDAR OF THE SENATE
OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
REGULAR SESSION BEGINNING TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2018
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2018

SECOND READING
CONSENT CALENDAR

**Indicates Subject to Rule 39

**S. 217 ( Word version)–Senators Bryant, Rice, Cromer, Martin, Corbin, Verdin, Turner, Young, Timmons, Davis, Talley, Shealy, Grooms, Peeler, Goldfinch, Climer, Gambrell, Williams, Gregory, Cash and Hembree:
A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT GENERALLY, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5, TO ENACT THE PERSONHOOD ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO ESTABLISH THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN BEING VESTS AT FERTILIZATION AND THAT THE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 3
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE, VEST AT FERTILIZATION FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN BEING.
(Read the first time–January 10, 2017)
(Reported by Committee on Judiciary–February 21, 2018)
(Favorable with amendments)

SC Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Luke Rankin (RINO-Horry) continues his 2017-2018 obstruction of SC Personhood Bill S .217

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
February 12, 2018

(Audio / Video)

SC Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Luke Rankin (RINO-Horry) continues his 2017-2018 obstruction of SC Personhood Bill S .217:

1) Truncated Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Feb 6; did not reach S .217 on Agenda
2)
Cancelled Senate standing Judiciary Committee meeting Feb 13

____________________________________
____________________________________

In the six Tuesdays since the 2018 Session of the SC Legislature convened on January 9, as of tomorrow February 13, Chairman Luke Rankin will have called Senate Judiciary Committee meetings on only two ( Jan 30 and Feb 6 ) of these six dates, and S .217, the SC Personhood Bill, will have been discussed in only one – Jan 30.

So instead of passing the bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee when it first appeared on the Agenda on May 2, 2017, Senator Rankin has now successfully delayed passage out of his Judiciary Committee until at least February 20, 2018 – using the committee process to kill the bill while minimizing his legislative record “fingerprints” on its death.

Read more details of Senator Luke Rankin‘s delaying tactics, “slow-walking” S .217 last year through the entire 2017 Legislative Session here and here and here.

Before the beginning of the 2018 Session, stated goals were to have S .217 favorably passed out of Senate Judiciary Committee by January 16; assigned Special Order status under Senate Rules Committee by January 30; passed with no “exceptions” amendments by full SC Senate by April 10, and passed with no “exceptions” amendments by full SC House by the last day of the regular 2018 Session, May 10.  However, we are now about one month behind this timetable.

__________________________________
__________________________________

More SC Personhood Bill S217 News:

1) Brave, bold, Recall Motion by Senator Shane Martin (R-Spartanburg), Christian, Baptist Deacon, SC Personhood Bill S .217 co-sponsor, on Tuesday, Feb 6 in full Senate chamber, to pull S .217 directly out of the Republican-majority [ 14 R, 9 D ] Senate Judiciary Committee, and onto the Senate calendar.  The Recall Vote failed: 10 Ayes [ 10 R, 0  D ] – 34 Nays [ 16 R, 18 D ].

2) Amendment to SC Personhood Bill S .217 proposed by five Senators co-sponsoring S .217 intended to “clarify” certain “cases” ( life of the mother, contraceptives, in vitro ) broadcast publicly by e-mail on Feb 8 by Personhood South Carolina, described as a “GOOD CLARIFYING AMENDMENT TO BE SUPPORTED”, is actually flawed and if attached to S .217 as written would undermine Personhood principle in the bill.
[ Christians for Personhood’s initial recommendation ( Feb 2 ) for Amendment language was sent to these same Senators ahead of the Feb 6 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting; revised recommended Amendment language ( Feb 8 ) was sent to these same Senators ahead of the anticipated (now cancelled) Feb 13 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. ]  Christians are asked to please pray only principled Personhood amendment language will actually be offered at the next meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee ( February 20th ? ) by Senators co-sponsoring SC Personhood Bill S .217.

Note: By definition, there are no “exceptions” to Human ( Natural ) Personhood:

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


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/

If there are  any “EXCEPTIONS” to Personhood, then we no longer have Personhood, nor a Personhood Bill.

_______________________________
_______________________________

Further reporting on February 6 Judiciary Committee meeting:

Truncated Judiciary Committee meeting February 6; did not reach S .217 on Agenda:

– Instead of the normal two-hour meeting, 11am – 1 pm, at the very beginning of calling the meeting to order ( late ), Chairman Luke Rankin announced an early adjournment at 12 noon to accommodate the Senate Democrat Caucus being able to listen to a speaker on taxes, at the request of Senate Minority ( Democrat ) Leader Senator Nikki Setzler ( D-Lexington ).  This may be heard on audio and seen on video below.  The meeting lasted less than one hour.  While most had likely expected the meeting to last the normal length ( two hours ), some knew of the shortened meeting in advance.

Audio – Beginning of February 6 Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting: Chairman, Senator Luke Rankin
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/DS_21285 (2).WMA   [ Must copy and paste web address into browser ]
[ Audio – 0:57 ]

____________________________________

South Carolina Legislature

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

Tuesday, February 6, 2018  11:00 am
Senate Judiciary Committee — Judiciary Committee
 
Agenda

Gressette Senate Office Building, Room 105
Video – 55:55

_____________________________________

– In addition, instead of being first, as S .217 was on the January 30 Judiciary Committee Meeting Agenda, on the February 6 Judiciary Committee Agenda, set under the authority of Chairman Luke Rankin, S .217 was listed for consideration after three Workers’ Compensation Commission appointments, and after two bills related to the failed VC Summer nuclear plant project.  The consequence of this lower priority for S .217 on the Agenda in combination with the truncated meeting and early adjournment, was S .217 was never
taken up at all on February 6th.

_______________________________
_______________________________

Further reporting on February 6 Recall attempt to pull S.217 out of Judiciary Committee and place the bill on the Senate calendar:

– Brave, bold, Recall Motion by Senator Shane Martin (R-Spartanburg), Christian, Baptist Deacon, SC Personhood Bill S .217 co-sponsor, on Tuesday, Feb 6 in full Senate chamber, to pull S .217 directly out of the Republican-majority [ 14 R, 9 D ] Senate Judiciary Committee, and onto the Senate calendar.  The Recall Vote failed: 10 Ayes [ 10 R, 0  D ] – 34 Nays [ 16 R, 18 D ].

– In the afternoon, Tuesday, February 6, in the full SC Senate chamber, experienced (3rd term in office), Christian, pro-Personhood Senator Shane Martin made a bold, surprise motion during the daily Motion Period to RECALL S .217 Personhood Bill directly out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and onto the full Senate calendar.  Unfortunately, only 10 Senators supported this courageous act to bypass the obstruction of Senator Luke Rankin and others.

The 10 Senators (all Republicans) who voted Feb 6 FOR the Recall ( Ayes ) of S217 are:
Alexander, Cash, Corbin, Cromer, Davis, Gambrell, Martin, Peeler, Rice, and Timmons.

The 34 who voted AGAINST the Recall ( Nays ) were 16 Republicans and 18 Democrats:

16 Republicans
Bennett, Campbell, Campsen, Climer, Goldfinch, Gregory, Grooms, Hembree, Leatherman, Massey, Rankin, Senn, Shealy, Talley, Turner, Young

18 Democrats
Allen, Fanning, Hutto, Jackson, Johnson, Kimpson, Malloy, Matthews (John), Matthews (Margie), McElveen, McLeod, Nicholson, Reese, Sabb, Scott, Setzler, Sheheen, Williams

This Roll Call vote is recorded in the February 6, 2018 Senate Journal here.  [ Senator Verdin had leave. ]

______________________________________
______________________________________

The Official Archived Video of the SC Senate for February 6, 2018 can be viewed here:

South Carolina Legislature

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

Tuesday, February 6, 2018  2:00 pm
Senate — Senate
 
SC State House – Senate Chamber
Video – 1:39:50

Begin viewing 1:14:45 – Lt Gov Bryant: “We are now in the Motion Period. Senator from Spartanburg, for what purpose do you rise?”

Senator Shane Martin: “Rise to make a Motion.

Lt Gov Bryant: “Please state your Motion.”

Senator Shane Martin: “My Motion is to pull Senate Bill 217, the Personhood Bill, out of the Committee on Judiciary, and place it on the calendar.”

______________________________________

continued… [ Includes a Roll Call vote on a Motion to Adjourn, which failed 19 Ayes – 21 Nays ]

Begin viewing 1:20:15 – Senator Luke Rankin [ To speak in opposition to Senator Martin’s Recall Motion ]

[ Excerpts: Senator Rankin comments 1:20:15 – 1:24:20 ]

– “… I’m not here to speak for or against the merits of this bill, but what I am here to speak on, are the merits, or perhaps if you don’t like what has developed thus far, the demerits, of the effort to consider this bill.”

“The effort thus far, has been to have a Subcommittee, which met a number of times,…”
[ Correction: The Subcommittee actually met TWO TIMES:  March 30, 2017 and April 26, 2017. ]

“The Subcommittee reported its bill in the first full Committee meeting which we had last Tuesday [ Jan 30 ] …”
[ Correction: The S.217 Subcommittee report was first on the Agenda of the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on May 2, 2017, during the week before the end of the regular 2017 Session on May 11, 2017. ]

OVER NINE MONTHS EARLIER. ]

[ Re: Jan 30 Jud Comm meeting ] “We had an hour and I think 30 minutes of discussion on this bill, and if you didn’t like what happened at the end of that hour and 30 minutes of discussion on that bill, which was to carry over further consideration of that bill, by a vote of 19 to 4, then you don’t like the committee process, perhaps, and you want to bypass that, and you want to come straight to the floor.”
[ Correction: The official minutes of the Senate Judiciary Committee record the carry over vote was 18 to 5. ]

“I’m not here for or against.the merits of the bill.  I am against an effort, to effectively, to hijack the committee process. If we can’t wait ONE WEEK to have a bill considered in the Committee, which is vested with the jurisdiction to consider that bill, then you may as well check out of the Committee process.  Let’s bypass the Committee, and let’s just bring it all to the floor.”
[ Comment: The Judiciary Committee last considered S.217 on January 30, and now it looks like it will not be considered again, at the earliest, until February 20, THREE WEEKS later ! ]

“I submit to ya, that’s what this [ Recall ] effort is, bypassing the committee process.”
[ Comment: This bill S .217 was filed January 10, 2017.  Senator Rankin took well over two months until March 22, 2017 to even assign the bill to a Subcommittee, and he appointed a pro-“abortion” Subcommittee Chairwoman, who then took almost the rest of the 2017 Session to conduct TWO Subcommittee hearings, March 30 and April 26, 2017. ]

“A vote to carry this over today, rather to set this and recall it, is a slap to this Senate, and a slap to the committee process .”

[ Senator Rankin END – 1:24:20 ]

___________________________________

continued…

Begin viewing 1:25:00 – Senator Shane Martin [ To speak in favor of his Recall Motion ]

[ Excerpts: Senator Martin comments 1:25:00 – 1:29:00 ]

“… I saw an opportunity today to be recognized in the Motion Period, which I may never get again, but I took the opportunity, I didn’t have a chance to talk to anybody about it.”

“So I rise today, I didn’t know this was gonna happen, but I’ve been here in this Senate long enough, and one of my issues is protecting life and protecting unborn children.  That’s what this bill does.  Senator Cash, I believe, Senator from Anderson, is here mainly for that issue, … a lot of people are.  I’ve watched the committee process, I respect the committee process, but I also watch filibusters by committee happen all the time.  This issue of personhood has been around ever since I’ve been in the Senate. … We can’t continue to wait, and go through more filibusters by committee.”  [ emphasis added ]

“So that’s why I rise today. I want to get this out of committee where it’s languished for years and years.  I know we’re just in 2018, and we had one meeting, and I appreciate that, but I feel the next meeting is gonna be more of the same, so until we take the time to debate this issue, that’s why I’m doing what I’m doing.  I apologize for not giving you notice, because I couldn’t give you notice.  If I gave you notice, I wouldn’t have gotten recognized in the Motion Period.”

“So that’s why I rise today. I just ask, continue my Motion, Mr. President, and ask for a roll call vote.”

[ Senator Martin END – 1:29:10 ]

___________________________________

continued…

Begin viewing 1:25:00 – Senator Margie Bright Matthews [ To speak in opposition to Senator Martin’s Recall Motion ]

[ Excerpts: Senator Bright Matthews comments 1:29:10 – 1:31:25 ]

“… I was the Subcommittee Chair for this committee.  Last year we had several, extensive, two hour plus meetings where we heard citizens and persons for and against S.217.
[ Correction: The Subcommittee actually met TWO TIMES: March 30, 2017 ( almost 1 1/2 hours of testimony ) and April 26, 2017 ( approx. 1 3/4 hours of testimony ).  NEITHER Subcommittee hearing took over two hours of testimony.  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. ]

“I think what we’re doing here is a disrespect to our own deliberative process. We’ve only had this in our Committee once. It was at the top of the agenda this morning [ Feb 6 ] behind the Workers’ Compensation folks that we had to approve.
[ Correction: The S.217 Subcommittee report was first on the Agenda of the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on May 2, 2017, during the week before the end of the regular 2017 Session on May 11, 2017. ]
OVER NINE MONTHS EARLIER. ]

“… Let me explain to you, … it came out in the first committee meeting that there’s a lot of confusion about what a fertilized egg is, versus an embryo, and a .. fetus.  This bill specifically says, and it was brought out in subcommittee and committee, that this bill, if you look at science, is fraught with a lot of problems.  It says that a fertilized egg should be given the rights of a person.  Don’t you realize that a fertilized egg happens when a man and a woman come together, and only a small percentage of those enter the uterus? They have to enter the uterus before they can even become an embryo and then a fetus.  It became apparent to me, and my Subcommittee meetings, that a lot of people didn’t understand the science of what this bill says.  It’s fraught with a lot of problems.  I ask you to allow the process to work and send this, make this stay in committee until we work out the problems.”
[ Note: The SC Personhood Act ( S .217) passed favorably out of the S217 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Wednesday, April 26, shortly before 11am, by a vote of 3 Yeas ( Rice , Gambrell, Talley) to 2 Nays (Bright Matthews, McLeod). ]

Glory to God !
– SC PERSONHOOD ACT ( S.217) passes Senate Judiciary Subcommittee favorably by 3Y-2N vote – April 26, 2017
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2017/04/28/glory-to-god-sc-personhood-act-s-217-passes-senate-judiciary-subcommittee-favorably-by-3y-2n-vote-april-26-2017/
April 27, 2017 / Revised April 28, 2017 / Revised July 5, 2017

[ Senator Bright Matthews END – 1:31:25 ]

______________________________

continued… [ Includes a second Roll Call vote on a Motion to Adjourn, which failed 21 Ayes – 22 Nays ]
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180206.htm#p25

The vote on the Recall Motion then took place, which failed 10 Ayes – 34 Nays
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180206.htm#p25

Having failed to received the necessary votes, the Senate refused to recall S. 217.

Statement by Senator GROOMS

Let me be clear — I support S. 217 and want it to become law. My vote today was against a procedural motion only. The motion, while noble in its intent, was misguided. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the Senate, had today’s sudden attempt to bypass the committee process over the objection of the committee chairman would have ensured one thing only — the certain failure of S. 217. Full, open, and transparent vetting of the people’s business is essential to good government, and is a bedrock principle upon which our state and our very nation were founded. I remain in favor of the Bill, and in our common goal of protecting the life of the most innocent among us.

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

Personhood Report: Opposition of Pope-Appointed US Roman Catholic Bishops to Multiple States’ Personhood Legislation: 2006 – 2012

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
January 11, 2018

Personhood Report:

Opposition of Pope Appointed US Roman Catholic Bishops to Multiple States’ Personhood Legislation: 2006 – 2012

Michigan (2006)
Georgia (2008)
Colorado (2008, 2009/2010, 2012)
Montana (2008, 2009)
North Dakota (2009)
Florida (2009)
Missouri (2010)
Mississippi (2011)

_____________________________
_____________________________

Opposition of Pope Appointed US Roman Catholic Bishops to Multiple States’ Personhood Legislation: 2006 – 2012

http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2018-01-09-Opposition-of-Pope-Appointed-US-Roman-Catholic-Bishops-to-Multiple-States-Personhood-Legislation-2006-2012.pdf

Michigan (2006)
Georgia (2008)
Colorado (2008, 2009/2010, 2012)
Montana (2008, 2009)
North Dakota (2009)
Florida (2009)
Missouri (2010)
Mississippi (2011)

[ Flyer with hyperlinks posted at: http://christianlifeandliberty.net/, News 2011-2018 page ]

___________________________________

[ 2012 – Colorado ] Colorado [ Roman ] Catholics for Personhood

Re: Colorado [ Roman ] Catholic Conference Letter – March 20, 2012
https://coloradocatholicsforpersonhood.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/scan0010.pdf

Re: [ Roman Catholic ] Archdiocese of Denver [ Colorado ] Letter – April 2, 2012
https://coloradocatholicsforpersonhood.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/scan0010.pdf

___________________________________

[ 2011 – Mississippi ] New York Times
Push for ‘Personhood’ Amendment Represents New Tack in Abortion Fight
October 25, 2011  [ Excerpts, emphasis, comments within [  ] added ]

“[ Vatican proxy ] National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, have refused to promote it, …”

“[ Pope appointed ] Bishop Joseph Latino of Jackson, Miss., said …  the Roman Catholic Church does not support [ Mississippi Personhood Amendment ] …”

____________________________________

[ 2011 – Mississippi ]
US Roman Catholic Bishops and National Right to Life*** do NOT support Personhood legislation
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2017/11/07/us-roman-catholic-bishops-and-national-right-to-life-do-not-support-personhood-legislation/

***CP Note:

Vatican proxy National Right to Life was formed under the auspices of the then-National Conference of (Roman) Catholic Bishops in 1968 – five years BEFORE ( !? ) Roe v. Wade in 1973, and just three years AFTER the close of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, with Vatican II’s major emphasis on Ecumenism; which is one major reason why Rome’s Hierarchy is PERPETUATING  “abortion” in America; i.e., to PERPETUATE the “Pro-Life Movement” which has been for years such  a fruitful platform for Rome to promote its anti-Bible, anti-Christ, ecumenism.  Rome is first and foremost about promoting Rome.  Rome’s goal is to make the formerly majority Protestant United States of America more Roman Catholic. ( And by the invasion of millions of illegal aliens from Central and South America, Rome is also achieving this strategic hegemonic goal by Romanizing America through Illegal Immigration. )

_____________________________________

[ 2010 – Missouri ] Missouri [ Roman ] Catholic Conference [ mocatholic.org ]:
Joint Statement of the Missouri [ Roman ] Catholic Bishops on the Personhood Amendment Petition Drive
April 19, 2010

Missouri Personhood Amendment (2010)  [ Ballotpedia ]

____________________________________

[ 2009 / 2010 – Colorado ] Colorado [ Roman ] Catholic Conference [ cocatholicconference.org ]:

Colorado [ Roman ] Catholics for Personhood
Re: Colorado Roman Catholic Bishops’ Letter – October 1, 2009

Second Poll: Colorado Personhood Amendment Likely to Lose  [ LifeSiteNews.com ]

_____________________________________

[ 2009 – Montana ] Montana [ Roman ] Catholic Conference [ montanacc.org ]:
Statement by the Roman Catholic Bishops of Montana
November 19, 2009

Human personhood and ill-advised [ Roman ] Catholic bishops [ Renew America
]
December 10, 2009

_______________________________________

[ 2009 – Florida ] Florida Conference of [ Roman ] Catholic Bishops [ flaccb.org ]:
Florida Personhood Amendment, Sep 2009
September 9, 2009

Florida Bishops Oppose Personhood Amendment  [ LifeSiteNews.com ]
September 29, 2009  [ Text within [  ] added ]

_______________________________________

[ 2009 – North Dakota ] North Dakota [ Roman ] Catholic Conference [ ndcatholic.org ] North Dakota [ Roman ] Catholic Bishops Opt to Preserve Roe v. Wade
  ( Right Side News )
April 2, 2009

Statement of the [ Roman ] Catholic Bishops of North Dakota on Pro-Life Legislation in the North Dakota Legislative Assembly
March 12, 2009

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL NO. 1572

Effects of totally gutting HB1572 and replacing with amendment proposed by the North Dakota Roman Catholic Bishops

‘Personhood’ bill fails, Bismarck Tribune [ North Dakota ]
April 3, 2009

______________________________________

[ 2008 – Montana ] The Billings Gazette (MT)
[ Roman Catholic ] Bishops won’t back abortion [ personhood ] measure  [ Edited ]
February 29, 2008

______________________________________

[ 2008 – Colorado ] The Denver Post
[ Ro  man ] Catholic Conference does not back personhood amendment  [ Edited ]
February 28, 2008

______________________________________

[ 2008 – Georgia ] The Georgia Bulletin
The Newspaper of the [ Roman ] Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta
[ Roman ] Catholic Conference Hosts Feb . 5 Day At Capitol
Published January 17, 2008

_______________________________________

[ 2006 – Michigan ] Detroit News
Abortion foes split over ballot – Michigan constitutional amendment would say life begins at conception.  [ Edited ]
May 30, 2006

[ 2006 – Michigan ] Celebrate LIFE Magazine
Sabotage in Michigan [ sabotage of a pro-life legislation drive ]
JANUARY 01, 2007  [ Note: Roman Catholic author ]

________________________________
________________________________

The US Supreme Court has done to the US Constitution what the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy has for centuries done to God’s Word, the Holy Bible: usurped, perverted, ignored, corrupted and rejected the authority of the written text for its own pronouncements:

The Christian Statesman – “For the  Crown Rights of Jesus Christ”

Court Tradition, or the Constitution Alone?
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2017-02-06-The-Christian-Statesman-Nov-Dec-2005-Court-Tradition-or-the-Constitution-Alone.pdf
November-December 2005  Vol. 148., No. 6, pp. 15-19.

Excerpts [ pp. 15-16 ]:

‘… the [ US ] Supreme Court became to the [ US ] Constitution what the Roman Catholic Church had become to the Bible. Constitutionally speaking, there are few “Protestants” today.  Few believe in the doctrine of the [ US ] Constitution alone. Few even know it exists.’

We Are All Constitutional Romanists Now [4]

    ‘
During the Reformation, Roman Catholics and Protestants were divided by a basic, theological question.  On what did authority rest?  Did it rest on the Bible plus church tradition or on the Bible alone?  The same theological question divides Romanists and Protestants today.  Rome holds to tradition.  Protestants reject it.’

     ‘In the constitutional realm, a similar question should divide Americans today.  On what does the legal authority of the government of the United States rest?  On the Constitution plus Court precedents or on the Constitution alone?  In the political establishment there is no doubt.  The Constitution plus Court precedent are the pillars of authority.  This gives the men and women of the legal establishment great power … when it comes to the ultimate law of the United States, virtually all Americans today are “Romanists.” ‘

     ‘Of course, ignorance permits deception.  Americans must become constitutionally literate.  There must be a reformation in the way citizens see the role of the [ Supreme ] Court.  There must be a people who raise the banner of “The Constitution Alone.” Christians must be those people.  They should be able to see the parallel between Scripture Alone and Constitution Alone.’

__________________________________
__________________________________

‘GOD Has Shown US Great MERCY…What Will We Do with the OPPORTUNITY?
Letter to the Editor / Opinion Editorial
Steve Lefemine, Christian pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
exec. dir. Christians for Personhood
November 12, 2016 / Edited, Revised November 14, 2016
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2016-11-12-GOD-Has-Shown-US-Great-MERCY-Letter-to-the-Editor.pdf

Personhood is Abolition
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 )  ].
The current 2017 legislation in the SC Legislature is called the Personhood Act of South Carolina ( S .217 / H.3530).
– 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.
Steve Lefemine
exec. dir., Christians for Personhood
March 15, 2017 [ Edited July 15, 2017 ]
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2017-03-15-Personhood-is-Abolition-edited-July-15-2017.pdf

‘For the Murdered Unborn, Incrementalism is Not Justice’
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2017/04/11/for-the-murdered-unborn-incrementalism-is-not-justice/
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2017-04-10-Incrementalism-is-Not-Justice-Incrementalism-is-Evil.pdf

Black’s Law Dictionary (2009): Person = “A Human Being”
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2013-12-11%20%20Blacks%20Law%20Dictionary%202009;%20Person%20=%20A%20Human%20Being.docx

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