Category Archives: Personhood Report

In Law, No Exceptions to Human Personhood

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
November 30, 2018 / Edited December 4, 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/

____________________________
____________________________

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 beginning at fertilization 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 previous 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 – 2018 )
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2018-11-29-History-of-Personhood-Legislation-in-South-Carolina-1998-2018.pdf

So February 2018 marked 20 years in which Personhood legislation has been active in the SC State Legislature.
   
During the 20 years from 1998 to 2018, 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 ]

_________________________________________

Posted previously on Christians for Personhood blog:

Personhood Report: In Law, No Exceptions to Human Personhood
January 30, 2018

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998-2018)

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
November 29, 2018/ Edited November 30,2018

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998 – 2018)
_______________________________________
_______________________________________

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina ( 1998 – 2018 )

Principled SC personhood legislation has been introduced in the SC House continuously since February 1998.

Principled SC personhood legislation has been introduced in the SC Senate continuously since 2005, plus the first time in February 1998.

1997-1998 Session:
House H.4558 introduced Feb 1998 –
www.scstatehouse.gov/sess112_1997-1998/bills/4558.htm
22 co-sponsors
Senate S.1060 introduced Feb 1998 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess112_1997-1998/bills/1060.htm
9 co-sponsors

1999-2000 Session:
House H.3135 –
www.scstatehouse.gov/sess113_1999-2000/bills/3135.htm
20 co-sponsors
No Senate personhood bill

2001-2002 Session
House H.3252 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess114_2001-2002/bills/3252.htm
27 co-sponsors
No Senate personhood bill

2003-2004 Session
House H.3190 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess115_2003-2004/bills/3190.htm
34 co-sponsors
No Senate personhood bill

2005-2006 Session
House – H.3213 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3213.htm
52 co-sponsors
Senate S.111 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess116_2005-2006/bills/111.htm
7 co-sponsors

_________________________________________________

SOUTH CAROLINA (2005) – First (only) time Personhood legislation passes SC House of Representatives, albeit with fatal flaw rape “exception” amendment allowing abortifacient drug use

Personhood legislation (Bill – H.3213) passed in the South Carolina House on Second Reading, April 13, 2005 by a vote of 95 – 18, albeit with a fatal flaw rape EXCEPTION amendment for a so-called “morning-after-pill” (an abortifacient causing chemical abortions)  that was added to the bill on the SC House floor prior to passage which allowed for this abortifacient drug to be given to a woman in the case of rape.  The bill then passed as amended on Third Reading, April 14, 2005 by a vote of 91 – 10, and was sent to the SC Senate, where it was later assigned to the Judiciary Committee.  Two Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearings were held, however no Subcommittee debate was conducted, and no vote was taken on the bill, effectively killing H.3213 for the 2005-2006 Session.

SC House Judiciary Committee, April 5, 2005 – H.3213
Audio (38:33) – Following debate, bill passed favorably by vote of 15 – 5 (roll call)

SC Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, May 4, 2005 – S.111 / H.3213
Audio (40:50) – Public hearing, no debate or vote

SC Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, May 18, 2005 – S.111 / H.3213
Audio (36:09) – Public hearing, no debate or vote

Personhood Bill Passes in South Carolina House
www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/011416.html
April 14, 2005  [ URL link no longer functions ]

‘South Carolina House Passes Personhood Bill’ (with fatal flaw) – April 14, 2005
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/H3213-311.doc

TAKE ACTION TO PASS the “Right to Life Act of South Carolina”
http://righttolifeactofsc.net/?m=200504

___________________________________________

2007-2008 Session
House H.3284
www.scstatehouse.gov/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3284.htm
35 co-sponsors
Senate S.313 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess117_2007-2008/bills/313.htm
10 co-sponsors

2009-2010 Session
House H.3526
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/3526.htm
54 co-sponsors
Senate S.450 – http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/450.htm
23 co-sponsors [ Note: five co-sponsors bailed out on April 13, 2010 Recall vote ]

2011-2012 Session
House H.3945
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/3945.htm
53 co-sponsors
Senate S.616 – http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/616.htm
20 co-sponsors

2013-2014 Session
House H.3584 –
http://scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/3584.htm
28 co-sponsors
Senate S.457 – http://scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/457.htm
22 co-sponsors

2015-2016 Session – First (only) Personhood Constitutional Amendments introduced

Personhood Act
Senate S.129 –
http://scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/129.htm
5 co-sponsors

Personhood Constitutional Amendment
Senate S.719 –
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/719.htm
13 co-sponsors

Personhood Constitutional Amendment
House H.4093 –
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/4093.htm
59 co-sponsors

2017-2018 Session
House H.3530 –
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3530.htm
53 co-sponsors
Senate S.217 – https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/217.htm
20 co-sponsors

 

Link (pdf): http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2018-11-29-History-of-Personhood-Legislation-in-South-Carolina-1998-2018.pdf

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #3B

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
May 16, 2018

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #3B:
_______________________________________
_______________________________________

[ Report to be sent by text also ]

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #3B:

Personhood Bill S217 vs Hutto “Hyde-Amdt”-type fake “pro-life” replacement amdt to H3548 vs SCCL’s euthanasia Dismemberment Bill H3548

/// On Tues, May 1, with the pro-euthanasia H3548 Dismemberment Bill before the Senate on Special Order, Senator Cash’s Amdt No. 11 proposing to add all language contained in Personhood Bill S217; to all text of Dismemberment Bill H3548; plus one additional sentence proscribing dismemberment of baby in case of providing medical treatment to prevent death of pregnant woman, was tabled on Roll Call vote of 30 Y – 11 N on Senator Hutto’s Motion to Table.

/// See Senate Journal for 5/1/2018 – https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180501.htm

/// As previously reported, voting No against tabling Amdt No. 11 were 11 Republicans: Alexander, Cash, Climer, Corbin, Cromer, Gambrell, Goldfinch, Martin, Rice, Timmons, Verdin

/// As a matter of record, EIGHT of these 11 also voted on February 6, 2018 to RECALL S217 Personhood Bill from Senate Judiciary Committee, where S217 was being “slow-walked” (obstructed, delayed) by Personhood opponent, Chairman Senator Luke Rankin (RINO-Horry). Senator Martin’s Recall Motion failed on a 10 Y – 34 N Roll Call vote

/// See Senate Journal for 2/6/2018 – https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180206.htm

/// The EIGHT who voted for both Cash Amdt No. 11 on May 2, AND voted for Senator Martin Recall Motion on Feb 6, 2018 are: Alexander, Cash, Corbin, Cromer, Gambrell, Martin, Rice, Timmons

/// Verdin was on leave Feb 6. Freshman Senators Climer and Goldfinch did not vote for Feb 6 Recall, however they are considered strong supporters of Personhood Bill. So these 11 together are considered strongest supporters of Personhood legislation among 27-seated member Republican Senate Caucus

/// Senators Davis and Peeler also voted for Martin Recall Motion Feb 6, however neither voted for Cash Amdt No. 11 on May 1 ///

[ End ]

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #3A:

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
May 13, 2018

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #3A:
_______________________________
_______________________________

[ Report to be sent by text also ]

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #3A:

Personhood Bill S217 vs Hutto “Hyde-Amdt”-type fake “pro-life” replacement amdt to H3548 vs SCCL’s euthanasia Dismemberment Bill H3548

/// On Tues, May 1, with the pro-euthanasia H3548 Dismemberment Bill before the Senate on Special Order, the vote to table Senator Cash’s Amdt No. 11 occurred about 6:45pm.  Amdt No. 11 proposed to add all language contained in Personhood Bill S217; to all text of Dismemberment Bill H3548, plus one additional sentence proscribing dismemberment of baby in case of providing medical treatment to prevent death of pregnant woman

/// The Roll Call vote to Table was 30 Y – 11 N, and so Amdt No. 11 was tabled (killed). See Senate Journal for 5/1/2018 – https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180501.htm

/// Voting Yes to table Amdt No. 11 were 16 R’s and 14 D’s. These 16 Republicans were: Bennett, Campbell, Campsen, Davis,  Gregory, Grooms, Hembree, Leatherman, Massey, Peeler, Rankin, Senn, Shealy, Talley, Turner, Young

/// Of these 16 Republicans voting Yes to table, 8 are listed as cosponsors of S217  ( https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/217.htm): Gregory, Grooms, Hembree, Peeler, Shealy, Talley, Turner, Young

/// The one Democrat cosponsoring S217 (Williams) also voted  to table Amdt No. 11

/// Voting No against tabling Amdt No. 11 were 11 R’s. These 11 Republicans were: Alexander, Cash, Climer, Corbin, Cromer, Gambrell, Goldfinch, Martin, Rice, Timmons, Verdin

/// Of these 11 Republicans voting No against tabling Amdt No. 11, 10 of the 11 (all except Alexander) are listed as cosponsors of S217

/// In summary, S217 Personhood Bill has 19 cosponsors (18 R, 1 D); and of these, 10 R’s voted No against tabling; and of these, 8 R’s, 1 D voted Yes to table

/// So 10 of 19 cosponsors of S217 voted in favor; and 9 of 19 cosponsors of S217 voted against, adding language of S217 Personhood Bill to language of H3548 Dismemberment Bill as per Amdt No. 11. ///

[ End ]

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #3:

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
May 10, 2018

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #3:
_______________________________
_______________________________

[ Report sent previously by text ]

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #3:

Personhood Bill S217 vs Hutto “Hyde-Amdt”-type fake “pro-life” replacement amdt to H3548 vs SCCL’s euthanasia Dismemberment Bill H3548

/// On Wed, May 2, Senator Cash offered six amdt’s (No. 12 to No. 17) to H3548 Dismemberment Bill.  Amdt No. 12 exposed the pro-euthanasia aspect of H3548 and attempted to close the “Euthanasia first (Kill the Baby first); then Dismember the Baby” loophole, by proscribing first killing the unborn child, and then dismembering the child

/// However, even that change was opposed by Senator Grooms, who served as point man for H3548, reporting H3548 was supported WITHOUT amdt by National Right to Life, SC Citizens for Life, SC Baptist Convention, SC (Roman) Catholic Conference, and the SC Assn of Pregnancy Centers. These groups support legislation which incrementally regulates child-murder. NONE are supporting Personhood Bill S217

/// After about 3 1/2 hrs of debate, Cash Amdt No. 12 was defeated on 7 Y – 30 N Roll Call vote.  See Senate Journal for 5/2/2018 – https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180502.htm

/// On the previous day, Tues, May 1, when H3548 came up on the Special Order portion of the Senate Calendar (about 5:30pm) Senator Cash proposed Amdt No. 11, which added all of the language contained in Personhood Bill S217; to all the text of Dismemberment Bill H3548, plus one additional sentence proscribing dismemberment of the baby in the case of providing medical treatment to prevent the death of pregnant woman

/// The debate lasted about 1 1/2 hrs, and then Cash Amdt No. 11 was tabled on a 30 Y – 11 N Roll Call vote. See Senate Journal for 5/1/2018 – https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180501.htm

/// Voting Yes to table  Amdt No. 11 were 16 R’s and 14 D’s. Voting No against tabling were 11 R’s

/// S217 Personhood Bill has 19 cosponsors (18 R, 1 D). Of these, 10 R’s  voted No against tabling. Of these, 8 R’s, 1 D voted Yes to table. ///

[ End ]