Tag Archives: Personhood

Difference Between Personhood Bill and Dismemberment Bill

Published by:

Letter to the Editor
The Times Examiner, Greenville, SC
INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF THE PALMETTO STATE
Anne Schell, Greenville, SC
April 11, 2018

“Those standing behind the Personhood Bill are coming from a Biblical perspective …”
“Those of us who believe the Personhood Bill should be promoted do so because we believe God will honor His Word when His people step out in faith.”
Proverbs 24:11-12

 

Dear Editor,

Many may be confused (pastors included) about the differences between the Personhood Bill and the Dismemberment Bill being presented before the SC Senate – why one should take priority over the other.

One of the main differences is WHO is supporting each of the bills. Those standing behind the Personhood Bill are coming from a Biblical  perspective while those who represent the Dismemberment Bill (NRL – National Right to Life & SCCL – South Carolina Citizens for Life) are coming from a political perspective.

Some in the NRL may be Christians but almost all backing the Personhood Bill are primarily Bible-based Christians. Some in the NRL consider their ways, in my opinion, more “intellectual” than merely relying on God’s Word as a basis for action.

Those of us who believe the Personhood Bill should be promoted do so because we believe God will honor His Word when His people step out in faith. God honored Joshua and Caleb’s faith when the other spies thought they would fail if they confronted the “giants” in Canaan.

Abortion is the giant in our land today. But God is the same today as He was thousands of years ago. Let us be bold and confident in our Lord who will go before us if we proceed in faith.

Please, pray for the presentation and passage of the Personhood Bill (S217).

“If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth he not know it? and shall he render to every man according to his works?” Proverbs 24: 11-12

Anne Schell – Greenville, SC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2018-04-22-Difference-Between-Personhood-Bill-and-Dismemberment-Bill-Letter-to-the-Editor-Times-Examiner-Apr-11-2018.pdf

(The Times Examiner) SC Legislature: Redefining How to Kill Babies

Published by:

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

The Times Examiner ( Greenville, SC ), March 21, 2018:

INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF THE PALMETTO STATE

General Assembly: Redefining How to Kill Babies

_____________________
_____________________

The Times Examiner, Greenville, SC
INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF THE PALMETTO STATE

‘General Assembly: Redefining How to Kill Babies’  [ three pages ]
March 21, 2018
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2018-03-24-General-Assembly-Redefining-How-to-Kill-Babies-Times-Examiner-Mar-21-2018.pdf

_______________________
_______________________

Excerpts:

[ SC House Rep. Linda ] Bennett, the bill’s sponsor, was reported in The State saying her bill [ H.3548 ] would not stop physicians from performing the procedure [ dismemberment ].  It would, however,  require doctors to kill the fetus before it is removed, she said.  [ emphasis, hyperlink to The State added ]

“All this bill does is require them to euthanize the baby before they rip it apart in the mother’s womb,”
Bennett said.  [ emphasis added ]

“I don’t like that we even do this procedure,” the Charleston Republican said.  “But if we can at least make it more humane, less painful, to the unborn child … I want to remove as much pain as I possibly can.” [ emphasis added ]  [ CP Note: The preborn child is still exterminated.  Proverb 12:10b, KJV ]

Will the Senate Republican Leadership leapfrog the incremental abortion regulation dismemberment bill (H3548) over the Personhood Bill (S217) and promote giving Special Order status to H3548 ahead of S217?

The State article exposes more of the depraved nature of the bill where sponsor Representative Linda Bennett of the dismemberment bill discusses the “humaneness” of the bill because it requires euthanizing of the baby, inside the womb, BEFORE he or she can be dismembered… Ponder on that for more than a moment…  This is a result of National Right to Life and their SC chapter, SC Citizens for Life‘s ability to dilute the idea of what it means to be “pro-life.”  [ emphasis added ]

Somehow, in this godless universe, lawmakers and pastors have rationalized incrementally regulating murder. If the “process,” the ripping apart of a human child from the womb, is sanitized, then it is acceptable to these same lawmakers and pastors to murder the child.  It is truly the time of calling evil, good and good, evil; putting darkness for light and light for darkness; bitter for sweet and sweet bitter.  (Isaiah 5:20)  Lawmakers, pastors and pseudo pro-life organizations are continuing in a dedicated battle to keep murder, legal.  [ emphasis added ]

SC Senate Leadership, specifically Leatherman (R-Florence) and Massey (R-Edgefield) once again, did not move for Special Order for S217 on March 14, 2018.  Senate President Pro Tem Leatherman moved for closing the Motion [P]eriod  which is the place on the Senate calendar when Senator Massey could have moved for a 2/3rds floor vote Special Order despite the apparent obstruction of Leatherman, Campsen (R-Charleston) and Reese (D-Inman) on Massey’s Rules Committee but, Massey did not so move.”  [ CP Note: By Leatherman moving to close the Motion Period, and by the Republican-majority body of Senators in the chamber then going along with Leatherman’s motion, neither Massey nor any other Senator is able to make a motion during the Motion Period.  However, if the Republican-majority body of Senators would by a simple majority vote object to Leatherman’s motion, then Senator Massey OR ANY OTHER SENATOR could move for Special Order for S217.  This has not been done NOT because it cannot be done procedurally, but because the Republican-majority Senate has NOT WILLED it to be done. ]

This country’s intentionally misdirected attention to gun issues distracts from this moral dilemma being experienced as the country moves further from being virtuous and righteous: requirements recognized more than 200 years ago by the framers as being essential to maintaining freedom and liberty.  [ emphasis added ]

The legal pretexts for the ongoing slaughter inside the womb where the most innocent reside without due process of law or equal protection of the laws is directly connected to the horrific violence occurring outside the womb where by extension: why would anyone expect life to be respected?

Hosea 4:6:  My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:  because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
[ emphasis added, Hosea 4:6, KJV ]

Those who wish to appear pro-life are using their very visible votes for dismemberment to portray themselves as being humane yet there will still be dead children whose lives are being sacrificed to insulate those who legislate incremental murder from having to take a principled stand against bad law. [ emphasis added ]

The Supreme Court opinions are not synonymous with the U.S. Constitution and Judicial Supremacy is not god.
When is the General Assembly going to recognize that supporting a pretended good is defeating what is best?
[ emphasis added ]

Matthew, Mark and Luke all share this reminder that it is better for a millstone to be hanged about one’s neck and be cast into the sea [than] that one should offend one of the little ones… It could be supposed that murder might be considered somewhat offensive, terrifying, frightening, and permanent.  Incremental murder is no less offensiveMutilation is offensive. This State’s debate on what the right way to kill a child is, is… offensive.  This has to stop.  [ emphasis added ]

________________________
________________________

From Christians for Personhood:

The SC Personhood Bill S.217 is competing with the “Dismemberment Bill” H.3548 for the attention of the SC Senate for being set for Special Order and actually getting debated on the floor of the Senate.

Christians, please contact SC Republican Senators, and SC Democrat Senators Jackson, Reese, and Williams, and ask them to support setting S.217 Personhood Bill for Special Order FIRST, immediately, before considering H.3548 “Dismemberment bill” for Special Order.

The April 10 “cross over” date under regular order for bills to be sent from the Senate to the House ( or from the House to the Senate ) may be just four legislative working days away ( March 27, 28, 29; April 10 ) if the SC Senate takes a week off the first week in April ( April 3, 4, 5 ).

Contact info for all SC Senators at: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/, click on ‘Senators

_____________________________
_____________________________

Christians for Personhood SC Senate Lobbying Memo
March 14, 2018 – Re: S217 Personhood Act of SC
The Son of God, “Jesus said, Thou shalt do not murder, …” Matthew 19:18, KJV / “Abortion” is Murder.
ALL Human Beings are Persons.  Fear God.  Proverb 1:7   Proverb 8:13   Proverb 9:10   Proverb 16:6b, KJV
Obey your Oath, So Help you God, to Establish Justice.  PASS PERSONHOOD NOW!

(Photo)
‘I AM A PERSON’ – 7 weeks from conception
 and “How To Receive Salvation of the Spirit”
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2018-03-12-I-AM-A-PERSON-7-weeks-from-conception.pdf

(The State) Personhood Bill vs. Dismemberment Bill

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
March 18, 2018

The State ( Columbia, SC ), March 16, 2018 ( online) / March 18, 2018 (print):

Personhood Bill vs. Dismemberment Bill

‘With 2 options in SC Legislature, activists split on best way to stop abortion’
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article205294704.html
March 16, 2018
Updated March 18, 2018

____________________________
____________________________

From Christians for Personhood:

Personhood Bill vs. Dismemberment Bill

In order listed in the online article in The State:

1) Holly Gatling, SC Citizens for Life (SC chapter of National Right to Life): lobbying for “dismemberment bill” / H.3548;

2) Steve Lefemine, Christians for Personhood: lobbying for Personhood bill / S.217; opposes H.3548;

3) Dr Oran Smith (PhD), Palmetto Family Council: opposes Personhood bill / S.217; supports incremental bills regulating child-murder / e.g., H.3548;

4) Dr Matthew Clark (MD), Personhood SC, lobbying for Personhood bill / S.217

The SC Personhood Bill S.217 is competing with the “Dismemberment Bill” H.3548 for the attention of the SC Senate for Special Order and actually getting debated on the floor of the Senate.

Christians, please contact SC Republican Senators, and SC Democrat Senators Jackson, Reese, and Williams, and ask them to support setting S.217 Personhood Bill for Special Order FIRST, before the H.3548 “Dismemberment bill” gets set for Special Order.

Contact info for all SC Senators at: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/, click on ‘Senators

___________________________
___________________________

(Photo)
‘I AM A PERSON’ – 7 weeks from conception
 and “How To Receive Salvation of the Spirit”
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2018-03-12-I-AM-A-PERSON-7-weeks-from-conception.pdf

__________________________
__________________________

The State ( Columbia, SC )

With 2 options in SC Legislature, activists split on best way to stop abortion
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article205294704.html
March 16, 2018
Updated March 18, 2018

[ CP: Correction, comments, added, portion omitted ]

To hear what abortion rights [ CP: sic ] supporters have to say about South Carolina’s abortion bills, read this.

Pro-life activists are optimistic that new abortion restrictions will become law in South Carolina this year.

But with not one but two pieces of legislation that could restrict abortion options ­ or potentially ban the procedure completely ­ opponents of abortion have to decide just how far they think the Palmetto State is willing to go.

Supporters of a ban on so-called “dismemberment” abortions say that measure offers a chance to eliminate a “gruesome” procedure with legislation that will hold up in court.

But some supporters of a so-called “personhood” bill say that proposal offers a more comprehensive measure that would open the door to banning all abortions ­ something even some pro-life activists see as a long shot.

Both measures are headed to the floor of the state Senate but face obstacles to becoming law, not the least of which is that the legislative session wraps for the year in mid-May.

Supporters are optimistic the dismemberment ban could become law, especially after it passed the S.C. House by a wide margin last year.

“This is very similar to the partial-birth abortion ban,” said Holly Gatling with S.C. Citizens for Life, referring to another abortion restriction that survived a court challenge. “That’s why we believe it will be upheld. … It doesn’t regulate women. It regulates the abortion industry.”

Gatling said the ban would end a “barbaric, inhumane procedure” ­ a procedure that doctors call “dilation and evacuation.” The procedure involves removing a fetus “one piece at a time from the uterus,” using instruments to “slice, crush, and/or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body to cut or rip it off,” according to the language of the bill.

Pro-choice [ CP: sic – Pro-“abortion” ] opponents of the bill say the procedure is the safest and most common form of second-trimester abortion.

But some abortion opponents think the dismemberment bill doesn’t go far enough. Steve Lefemine with Christians for Personhood doesn’t see the virtue in preferring one method of ending a pregnancy to another.

“It would be like a German parliamentarian in the ’40s  regulating the Zyklon B in the (concentration camp) showers,” Lefemine said. “The [ CP: Sixth ] [C]ommandment says, ‘[T]hou shalt not kill,’ not ‘thou shall incrementally limit murder.'”

A personhood bill legally would define an embryo as a person from the moment of conception, with all the rights that go along with it. However, since that would go against the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, critics worry a personhood bill would face a long and costly legal challenge that the state ultimately could lose.

“It could be stayed through a long legal battle,” said Oran Smith with the Palmetto Family Council, which supports the dismemberment bill. “The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is not the Strom Thurmond-Jesse Helms circuit any more. There are a lot of Obama appointments on the court.”

Some make the same case against the dismemberment ban.

Smith says his organization’s philosophy always has been to “chip away at abortions in the state.”

Matthew Clark with Personhood S.C. is confident the GOP-controlled Legislature can advance the personhood bill into law this year. However, the bill has yet to pass the House and the Senate.

“The purpose is to recognize the God-given, inalienable right to life for every human being,” Clark said. “No one is safe if the government determines who does and doesn’t have rights.”

continued…

(The Times Examiner) ‘Personhood Act Passes Senate Judiciary Committee By 12Y – 9N’

Published by:

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

The Times Examiner ( Greenville, SC ), Feb. 28, 2018:

INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF THE PALMETTO STATE

‘Personhood Act Passes Senate Judiciary Committee By 12Y – 9N’

_____________________________
_____________________________

The Times Examiner, Greenville, SC
INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF THE PALMETTO STATE

‘Personhood Act Passes Senate Judiciary Committee By 12Y – 9N’
February 28, 2018
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2018-03-12-Personhood-Act-Passes-Senate-Judiciary-Comm-By-12Y-9N-The-Times-Examiner-Feb-28-2018.pdf
 

____________________________________
____________________________________

Excerpts:

“Now a Special Order status for S.217 is needed so that it will actually be debated on the floor of the Senate.”

“Please 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.”

________________________________________
________________________________________

Additional postings provided by Christians for Personhood:

By definition, there are no “exceptions” to Human ( Natural ) 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/

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.

The Times Examiner ( Greenville, SC )
INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF THE PALMETTO STATE

‘Personhood and 2018 SC Legislature’
‘Pass Personhood Now !’
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2018-01-09-Personhood-and-2018-SC-Legislature-Pass-Personhood-Now!-The-Times-Examiner-Jan-03-2018.pdf
January 3, 2018

SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR HENRY McMASTER LETTER
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster :
“Please know that I strongly support the Personhood Act (H.3530 and S.217) and look forward to signing it into law.”
Letter to Dr. Matthew Clark, Chairman of the Board, Personhood South Carolina
October 2, 2017


‘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”

“person. … 1. A human being. – Also termed natural person.
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2013-12-09-Blacks-Law-Dictionary-Person-3.pdf
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

[The State] Personhood Bill S.217 to outlaw all “abortions” in South Carolina passed favorably by Senate Judiciary Committee, by 12 – 9 vote

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
February 20, 2018

Personhood Bill S .217 to outlaw all “abortions” in South Carolina passed favorably by Senate Judiciary Committee, by 12 – 9 vote
____________________________
____________________________

Excerpt:

After the vote, Gov. McMaster praised the [ Senate Judiciary ] committee’s decision.

“I believe that human life begins at conception, and I believe the people of South Carolina deserve for their laws to reflect the values they hold dear,” the Richland Republican said in a statement.
“I applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision to move this important legislation forward and ask that the Senate pass it without delay.”

The State ( Columbia, SC )
Plan to outlaw all abortions in South Carolina gets OK from Senate panel
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article201090564.html
February 20, 2018

___________________________


[ Pro-“Abortion” ] The State ( Columbia, SC )
Plan to outlaw all abortions in South Carolina gets OK from Senate panel
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article201090564.html
February 20, 2018 01:30 PM
Updated 31 minutes ago

[ CP Note: Emphasis added; comments, additional information in bold red added ]

A Republican proposal that, effectively, would ban all abortions in South Carolina is headed to the full Senate for a vote despite concerns it could criminalize fertility treatment [ FALSES .217 would NOT ban in vitro fertilization; it does affirm right of SC General Assembly to regulate in vitro procedures.  Any practice attendant to in vitro fertilization which kills a preborn human being could be banned by further legislation. ] and some types of birth control [ S .217 does NOT ban contraception.  Any “birth control” which causes chemical “abortions” would have to be proven by the State of South Carolina to function in that way ], and ban abortions performed to save the mother’s life [ FALSE ].

A state Senate committee [ full Judiciary Committee ] OK’d [ favorably passed ] the proposal Tuesday after two hours of debate, voting 12-9 along party lines to extend legal rights to fertilized eggs [ sic – zygotes / embryos / fetuses / all pre-birth human beings ] at the moment of conception [ same as fertilization ].

One Republican on the panel did not vote on the proposal [ Senator Sandy Senn (R-Charleston) ], saying it was unconstitutional [ sic – See LEGAL EXPERTS SUPPORTING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE-LEVEL PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION IN SC (2001), MISS (2009), ALA (2011), and OK (2012) ].  However, advocates see the proposal as a way, possibly, to overturn the 1972 [ sic – 1973 ] Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion [ sic“Abortion” is NOT legal ].

The proposal [ S .217 Personhood Bill of South Carolina], which must pass the full Senate and House, has been praised by abortion opponents and condemned by [ sic – some ] medical and [ sic – some ] women’s rights groups.

The “Personhood Act” [ S .217 ] that GOP senators approved Tuesday was sponsored by Lt. Gov. Kevin Bryant – when he still was a state senator – and endorsed by Gov. Henry McMaster.  Both are seeking the Republican nomination for governor in June’s GOP primary, where the abortion issue is a key one to Republican voters.

continued…

The Personhood Act would outlaw … [ all ] … of the nearly 6,000 abortions performed in South Carolina each year.
Just two other states – Kansas and Missouri – have a personhood law. But in both states, that law is expressly subject to the U.S. Constitution [ FALSE – Kansas and Missouri have subjected themselves “to the Constitution of the United States, AND decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court …” ( in other words, to Supreme Court OPINIONS about what the written text of the US Constitution says, which according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution itself, are NOT what comprise “the supreme Law of the Land”. ]  [ emphasis added ]

Its champion in the Senate, Richard Cash, R-Anderson, says the proposal is intended to spark a court case that could be used to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion under the 14th Amendment.
[ CP Note: By DENYING the PERSONHOOD of pre-birth human beings ].

“We are trying to challenge the Supreme Court on their fundamental error that a human being is not a person,” Cash said. “A human being is a person.”

[ CP Note: Black’s Law Dictionary, used by attorneys states:  “person” – “A human being.” ]

Senate Democrats on Tuesday complained the proposal, even after a revision Tuesday, leaves too many questions unanswered.

“I don’t think the authors of this bill and the authors of this amendment have considered the consequences,” said state Sen. Thomas McElveen, D-Sumter. “We need to do our job here. Our job is to get out as good of legislation as we can … before we get it on the floor for debate.”

Democrats relayed concerns from fertility specialists who said they don’t want to be charged with murder for disposing of any fertilized eggs that aren’t used during in-vitro fertilization.

Cash replied the bill explicitly does not outlaw in-vitro fertilization. But, the Anderson Republican added, fertilization clinics “should not be allowed to destroy the eggs.”

Opponents also worry the Personhood Act could target doctors who perform abortions in medical emergencies that threaten the mother’s life. An amendment to Cash’s bill states that a doctor cannot be charged for the accidental or unintentional death of an unborn child if that doctor is making “reasonable medical efforts” to save both the mother and child during a medical emergency.

Democrats also weren’t happy that the bill makes no exception for abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Cash didn’t back down after state Sen. Margie Bright Matthews, D-Colleton, offered a hypothetical situation involving a 11-year-old girl.

“If a child is raped, yes, that is a horrible act,” Cash said. “Two wrongs don’t make a right. You cannot erase the rape by killing the child. The child is an innocent person.”

“Have you ever been raped?” state Sen. Mia McLeod, D-Richland, asked, starting a line of questioning that Cash refused to answer. “Have you ever been pregnant?”

Cash said the bill is not intended to outlaw birth control but said the bill doesn’t expressly state that intention because “birth control pills, the way that they are formulated, have and could change over time.”

The bill faces heavy opposition from Senate Democrats, who can use the chamber’s rules to hold it up. An earlier version of the bill died on the Senate floor in 2016.

State Sen. Sandy Senn, R-Charleston, abstained from voting, saying she thinks the bill is unconstitutional but didn’t want to vote against a pro-life proposal.

After the vote, Gov. McMaster praised the [ Senate Judiciary ] committee’s decision.

“I believe that human life begins at conception, and I believe the people of South Carolina deserve for their laws to reflect the values they hold dear,” the Richland Republican said in a statement. “I applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision to move this important legislation forward and ask that the Senate pass it without delay.”

___________________________
___________________________
___________________________

Additional information provide by Christians for Personhood:

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    

“PERSONHOOD” is the key to ENDING child-murder-by-‘abortion’A plain reading of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and analogous due process and equal protection language in the State Constitutions [ for example, Article I., Section 3. of the South Carolina Constitution ], indicates that legal status and therefore protection of constitutional rights, is granted to ’PERSONS’ in these provisions.  The issue of personhood for the ‘fetus’ as being the preeminently critical issue was specifically addressed by a US Supreme Court Justice during the October 11, 1972 Roe v. Wade Oral Reargument.
[ Go to these internet links to both a transcript and the actual audio of the October 11, 1972 Roe v. Wade Oral Reargument. ]

_______________________________

THE 1973 ROE V. WADE OPINION REVEALS THAT ESTABLISHING PERSONHOOD FOR THE PREBORN AT FERTILIZATION, WITH NO ‘EXCEPTIONS’ , IS THE KEY TO ENDING CHILD-MURDER BY ‘ABORTION’.
[ However, Roe v. Wade itself is a fraud, denying preborn personhood, and making a ‘strawman’ argument with the 14th Amdt.]

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)  (Opinion published January 22, 1973)  Findlaw.com

“The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development.  If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s [ pro-abortion ] case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the AmendmentThe appellant [ pro-abortion side ] conceded as much on reargument. … ”
[ emphasis added ]

________________________________

THE KEY, CRITICAL, FIRST, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN ROE V. WADE (1973) WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE ‘FETUS’ ( PRE-BIRTH HUMAN BEING ), WOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN LAW AS A LEGAL ‘PERSON’:
[ Note:  American Constitutional Law even recognizes Corporations as legal ‘Persons’, but not preborn Human Beings !!! ]

Excerpt from transcript (edited) of Reargument ( October 11, 1972 ) of Roe v. Wade before the US Supreme Court:

US Supreme Court Justice:
“And the basic constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it ?” 
[ p. 827 ]

Mr. Robert Flowers (Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas):
“Yes, sir, and entitled to the constitutional protection.” 
[ p. 827 ]

US Supreme Court Justice:  “And that’s critical to this case, is it not?”  [ p. 828 ]

Mr. Robert Flowers (Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas):  “Yes, sir, it is. … (continued).”  [ p. 828 ]