Tag Archives: Abortion Exceptions

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4, 2018 – Report #2:

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
May 8, 2018

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4, 2018 – Report #2:
_____________________________
_____________________________

[ Report sent previously by text ]

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #2:

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

/// The Hutto “Hyde-Amdt”-type fake “pro-life” replacement amdt language which supplanted the euthanasia Dismemberment Bill language was adopted on a 24 Y – 1 N vote about 9:45pm Wed night, May 2. About one hour later before adjourning for the night, the Senate gave Second Reading (28 Y – 10 N) to H3548, which was now a much different bill, although not a Personhood or true “pro-life” bill. This Hutto/Hyde fake “pro-life” bill did NOT establish Personhood, and had several child-murder “exceptions” for rape, incest, life and serious health risk of mother.

/// The two Roll Call votes above  are listed in Senate Journal for 5/2/2018
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180502.htm

/// Earlier same day, Wed, May 2 (beginning after 3:30pm and continuing into evening), Senator Cash cont’d to offer several Amdt’s (he began with his first major Amdt Tues evening, May 1) to H3548 Dismemberment Bill, which was then still in its pro-euthanasia form; “Redefining How to Kill Babies”, allowing dismemberment of unborn children after  first euthanizing  (murdering) them inside the womb, by sticking a long needle into baby’s heart with an injection, to stop the heart, intentionally causing death. This sick legislation advocated by SC Citizens for “Life” is NOT Pro-Life !!!

/// Amdt No. 12 offered by Senator Cash exposed the pro-euthanasia aspect of H3548 and attempted to close the “Euthanasia first (Kill the Baby first); then Dismember the Baby” loophole, by adding language to also proscribe “… after first killing a living unborn child, knowingly to dismember an unborn child and extract him one piece at a time from the uterus…”

/// None of the several Amdt’s proposed by Senator Cash to H3548 on Wed, May 2 were adopted; text of each one may be seen in Senate Journal ///

[ End ]

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4, 2018 – Report #1:

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
May 7, 2018

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4, 2018 – Report #1:
___________________________
___________________________

[ Report sent initially by text Fri, May 4, 2018 ]

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

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

/// There is far too much to cover in one text all that occurred between about 5:30pm Tues May 1 when debate started on Dismemberment Bill H3548 (Special Order), and sometime before 1am this morning Fri May 4 when Republican super-majority Senate voted to kill / Recommit back to Med Aff Comm, the Hutto “Hyde-Amdt”-type fake “pro-life” replacement amdt language which had supplanted the euthanasia Dismemberment Bill language, making H3548 now a much different bill, though not a Personhood / true “pro-life” bill either.

/// This Hutto / Hyde amended replacement version of H3548 did NOT establish Personhood, and had several child-murder “exceptions” for rape, incest, life and serious health risk of mother.

/// The Dem’s began their filibuster about 2:20pm Thurs May 3, and four cloture votes were taken over the next 10 hours or so, with these results (lesser of 26 votes or 3/5 of those present and voting needed for cloture): Cloture #1:  23 Y – 22 N; Cloture #2: 24 Y – 21 N; Cloture #3: 24 Y – 21 N; Cloture #4: 25 Y – 20 N.

/// So Cloture vote #4 was just ONE vote short of the required 26. And in Cloture vote #4, RINO’s Leatherman (Florence) and Rankin (Horry) again joined the 18 Dem’s to block cloture.

/// After Cloture vote #4 (25 Y – 20 N) failed by just ONE vote from getting the needed 26 votes because RINO Senate President Pro Tem / Finance Comm Chair Leatherman and RINO Senate Judiciary Comm Chair Rankin both voted NO to cloture, then Hutto moved to kill / Recommit H3548 back to Med Aff Comm, which passed, 24 Y – 21 N.  Joining the 18 Dem’s were: Campsen (Charleston), Gregory (Lancaster), Leatherman (Florence), Massey (Edgefield), Rankin (Horry), and Shealy (Lexington)

/// More to come…

/// Senate Journal (5/3/18) – http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180503.htm

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