Tag Archives: State Amendment

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
March 24, 2016

SC Personhood Amendment

– Senate Judiciary Committee ends March 22 meeting before taking up S.719

__________________________
__________________________

The SC Senate Judiciary Committee met for nearly three hours on Tuesday, March 22, however the meeting ended five items short ( after finishing item #19 ) before reaching the last item ( #24 out of 24 Agenda items ), S.719 SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment.

With the SC Senate in Recess all of next week ( March 27 – April 2 ), the next regular Tuesday meeting of the full Senate Judiciary Committee will likely be Tuesday, April 5 at 3pm. It is expected that S.719 will be taken up at that meeting.

At present, there are eight known votes in support of S.719 on the 22-man Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the non-supporting Senators has agreed to abstain, meaning we may need up to 11 votes for S.719 to pass on April 5.

See the list posted here of the 22 Senators who are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ( 13 R, 9 D ), and these Members’ Positions on the S.719 SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment.

Please continue to contact / lobby non-supporting Senators. Contact information on the South Carolina Legislature website for all SC Senators is posted here.

Please see the letter below regarding contacting / lobbying seven specific non-supporting Senators who are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Senators Campsen, Bennett, Hembree, Rankin, Thurmond, McElveen, and Saab.

You may complete Senate Lobbying Memos and send them to Christians for Personhood, PO Box 12222, Columbia, SC 29211 by Monday April 4 ( NLT April 5 ), to be turned in at the State House for hand-delivery to each Senator personally in the Senate chamber.

Two example Senate Lobbying Memos posted here.

Two blank Senate Lobbying Memos posted here.

____________________________________

Upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee vote on S.719

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

*** Your Immediate Help and Action is Needed ! ***

Dear Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood Christians,

The SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment S.719 passed out of a three-man Judiciary Subcommittee on Thursday, March 17 by a vote of 2 Yeas ( Bright, Corbin ) to 1 Nay ( Bright Matthews ); but was then placed last on the Agenda for the regular Tuesday March 22 meeting of the full Senate
Judiciary Committee, chaired by judicial supremacist Senator Larry Martin ( R-Pickens ), who opposes SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment S.719. S.719 appeared on the Agenda as #24 of 24 items.

On Tuesday, March 22, the full Senate Judiciary Committee meeting started early, and met for nearly three hours, however the meeting ended five items short ( after finishing item #19 ) before reaching the last item, SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment S.719.

With the SC Senate in Recess all of next week ( March 27- April 2 ), that means the next regular Tuesday meeting of the full Senate Judiciary Committee will likely be Tuesday, April 5 at 3pm. It is very likely S.719 will be taken up for consideration at that meeting. Please consider attending, arriving at 2pm if possible, sitting near the front, and obtaining a pink lapel tag to wear showing your support of S.719. The meeting will likely be in Room 105, Gressette Senate Office Bldg, immediately behind the SC State House.

Whether or not you are able to physically come on April 5, please contact Judiciary Comm. Senators between now and then by any and/or all of the contact means posted on each individual Senator’s webpage at the www.scstatehouse.gov website ( first click on “Senators”, then click on the individual Senator’s name ), and convey this simple message to them: “Please vote to pass S719 SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment. If you cannot vote ‘Yes’ to S719, please do not vote against S719, please abstain.”

Please look at the two example lobbying memos which are posted here to Senator Campsen and to Senator Hembree. Using the four blank lobbying memos enclosed, please write up memos like these in your own handwriting, using your name, to at least four of these seven Senators: Campsen, Bennett, Hembree, Rankin, Thurmond, McElveen, and Saab. [ You may also print out more blank lobbying memos posted here [ two blank Senate Lobbying Memos ], or you can go to the “Personhood Act” page of the ChristianLifeandLiberty.net website. Go to the “Personhood Act” page, item # 102., which is entitled:“Blank Form – Memo Form for Lobbying SC Senate Members”. ] Write-up memos to all seven if you wish.

IMPORTANT ! The Judiciary Committee meeting is likely at 3pm, however the entire Senate goes into Session inside the SC State House Tuesday, April 5 at 12 noon. Please mail your completed lobbying memos back to Christians for Personhood, PO Box 12222, Columbia, SC 29211, such that they arrive, preferably, on or before Monday, April 4, but absolutely NLT Tuesday, April 5 in the morning mail, so that they can be picked up, taken to the SC State House, and turned in to the courtesy desk located just outside the Senate chamber, for hand-delivery by Senate pages to each Senator personally inside the chamber during Session.

If SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment S.719 is to pass the SC Senate, and if S.719 is to be placed on the November 8, 2016 General Election ballot for the people of South Carolina to vote on whether our State Constitution will explicitly protect the lives of pre-birth human beings from the moment of conception ( fertilization ), then S.719 must come out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Please do what you can to help stop the shedding of innocent blood in South Carolina. Thank you.

In Christ,
Steve Lefemine

________________________________

‘Abortions’ Committed at Major Child-Murder Mills
in South Carolina, 1988 to 2014
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2016-03-08-SC-Abortion-Statistics-1988-2014.xls

________________________________

Archived video of the March 17 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee public hearing on S. 719 SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment ( S.719 passed favorably by 2Y-1N vote ):

South Carolina Legislature
http://scstatehouse.gov/

Archives
http://scstatehouse.gov/archives.php

Video Archives
http://scstatehouse.gov/video/videofeed.php

Video Archives by meeting time
(Reorder by Body/Committee)

48:50 [ Video length ]

Thursday, March 17, 2016 1 hour after the Senate adjourns
Senate Judiciary Committee — Judiciary Subcommittee on S.719

Totals of 14 speakers ( six Anti-Personhood; eight Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood ):

Speaker 1) Anti-Personhood – assoc. dir., SC Coalition for Healthy Families [ sic ]

Speaker 2) Anti-Personhood – The League of Women Voters representative

Speaker 3) Anti-Personhood – Planned Parenthood [ sic ] representative

Speaker 4) Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood – Mr. Gordon Cashwell, pastor, Charleston

Speaker 5) Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood – Steve Lefemine, exec. dir., Christians for Personhood

Speaker 6) Anti-Personhood – Family Law attorney

Speaker 7) Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood – Johnny Gardner, dir., Voice of the Unborn

Speaker 8) Anti-Personhood speaker

Speaker 9) Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood – Laura Cash Fultz, nursing graduate

Speaker 10) Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood – Richard Cash, exec. dir., Personhood South Carolina

Speaker 11) Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood – Mr. Andrew Dionne, pastor, Spartanburg

Speaker 12) Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood – Travis Childers

Speaker 13) Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood – William Fultz

Speaker 14) Anti-Personhood – ACLU legal director, lawyer

Constitutional Amendment Personhood

SC Personhood Amendment passes Senate Judiciary Subcommittee favorably by 2Y-1N vote – March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016 Published by: personhood

Focus on the SC pro-personhood effort now shifts to the 22-man SC Senate Judiciary Committee. See list here of SC Judiciary Committee members ( 13 R, 9 D ) and the Members’ Positions on the S.719 SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment. Please contact especially these eight Senators, below who are not presently listed as S.719 co-sponsors, asking for their support and their ‘Yea’ vote for S.719 in the full Judiciary Committee, which could possibly vote on S.719 as early as Tuesday, March 22 in their next regular meeting:

See these Senators’ individual webpages and contact information posted here:

1) Sean Bennett ( R – Berk, Chas, Dorch ) – not presently co-sponsor of S.719, co-sponsored S.457 in 2013-2014

2) Greg Hembree ( R – Dillon, Horry ) – not presently co-sponsor of S.719, co-sponsored S.457 in 2013-2014

3) Larry A. Martin, Chairman ( R – Pickens ) – not presently co-sponsor of S.719, but says will vote for S719

[ Note: This is seen as a pragmatic position of political survival; Larry Martin has two Republican opponents in the June 14, 2016 Republican Primary, BOTH of whom are personhood supporters. Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin has been a judicial supremacist opponent of S719, and has delayed assigning S.719 to a Judiciary Subcommittee for over 10 months after S719 was introduced in the SC Senate on April 28, 2015 ! ]

4) Luke A. Rankin ( R – Horry ) – non-supporter of S.719

5) Paul Thurmond ( R – Chas, Dorch ) – not presently co-sponsor of S.719

6) J. Thomas McElveen, III ( D – Kershaw, Lee, Rich, Sumter ) – non-supporter of S.719

7) Ronnie A. Sabb ( D – Berk, Flor, George, Horry, Williams ) – not presently co-sponsor of S.719
[ occupies Senate seat previously held by Yancey McGill ( D ); McGill co-sponsored S.457 in 2013-2014 ]

8) George E.”Chip” Campsen, III ( R – Beau, Chas, Coll ) anti-personhood judicial supremacist, professing Christian ( Baptist )

___________________
___________________

Summary of Recent Events:

1) With the pressure building for a Recall vote on the floor of the Senate, which would have potentially put all 45 SC Senators on the record, one way or another, as to their stand on the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Larry Martin ( R – Pickens ) agreed last Thursday ( March 10 ) to finally assign S.719 to a Judiciary Subcommitte ( over 10 months after S.719 was introduced on April 28, 2015 ). As requested, he assigned S.719 to a favorable subcommittee ( two S.719 co-sponsors and one opponent ), with Senator Lee Bright ( R-Gvl/Spart ), the primary bill sponsor, as the Subcommittee Chairman, and Senator Larry Martin also agreed to vote for S.719 in the full Judiciary Committee [ He has also said since then that he intends to vote against S.719 on the floor of the full SC Senate. ]

2) On Wednesday, March 16, Personhood South Carolina conducted a Personhood Day in Columbia, urging personhood supporters to meet with SC Representatives and SC Senators, followed by an energizing rally in the First Floor Lobby of the SC State House at which several evangelical and protestant Christians pastors spoke strong messages of exhortation and challenge, well received by pro-personhood supporters, adults and children, present.

3) Also as of March 16, Senator Larry Martin’s agreement from the previous week to assign S.719 to a favorable Judiciary Subcommittee was posted on the www.scstatehouse.gov website here.

4) The Judiciary Subcommittee public hearing was held today, March 17, with several speakers for and against. At the conclusion of the testimony, the vote of the subcommittee was taken, and S.719 passed favorably by a voice vote of 2 Yea ( Bright, Corbin ) to 1 Nay ( Bright Matthews ). Thank God for the righteous votes of Senators Lee Bright and Tom Corbin to establish justice !

5) The next step will hopefully be the full Judiciary Committee at its regular meeting next Tuesday, March 22 as should be posted here by Friday ( March 18 ) COB.

Contact members from 22-man Judiciary Committee listed posted here, especially these Senators:

Sean Bennett ( R – Berk, Chas, Dorch )

Greg Hembree ( R – Dillon, Horry )

Larry A. Martin, Chairman ( R – Pickens )

Luke A. Rankin ( R – Horry )

Paul Thurmond ( R – Chas, Dorch )

J. Thomas McElveen, III ( D – Kershaw, Lee, Rich, Sumter )

Ronnie A. Sabb ( D – Berk, Flor, George, Horry, Williams )

George E.”Chip” Campsen, III ( R – Beau, Chas, Coll ).

* Edited March 18, 2016

Constitutional Amendment Personhood

SC Personhood Amendment – 55 House, 14 Senate members in support but 2/3 needed [ 83 in House, at least 30 in Senate ]

March 3, 2016 Published by: personhood

“Pro-Personhood is Pro-Life”
Mass Public Pro-Personhood / Pro-Life Lobbying Day set for March 16 ( Wed. )

Please plan to come March 16 to SC State House and Office Buildings in Columbia:

1) Meet with and lobby your SC State Senator [ Call, make appt., bring a group ]

2) Meet with and lobby your SC State Representative [ Call, make appt., bring a group ]

3) Move to SC State House 1st and 2nd Floor Lobbies, and then to 3rd Floor Public Viewing Gallery of Senate Chamber for Floor Vote***

*** One way or another, the Vote by Senators to advance or block S.719, the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment on March 16, is the Record Vote of where each SC Senator stands on legal Personhood for the preborn ( and therefore protection of their God-given, unalienable right to life under Article I, Section 3, of the South Carolina Constitution ).

_____________________________
_____________________________

SC Personhood Amendment Status Summary:

1. SC Senate Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin ( R-Pickens ) is refusing to assign S.719 to a Judiciary Subcommittee where it could receive a public hearing. S.719 was introduced in the SC Senate on April 28, 2015, ten months ago. Yet despite the fact that Senator Larry Martin has been repeatedly asked to assign S.719 to a favorable subcommittee, he refuses to assign it to any Judiciary Subcommittee whatsoever, unless S.719 first passes out of the SC House.
[ Note: SC House Judiciary Chairman Greg Delleney ( R-Chester and York ) has repeatedly said, publicly and privately, that IF personhood legislation is passed by the SC Senate, he will get it passed in the SC House ( A SC Personhood bill was passed one time by the SC House on April 14, 2005 ( 91 – Y, 10 – N ), albeit with a fatal flaw “exception” amendment ) ].

SC Senator Larry Martin is what is known as a “judicial supremacist”, erroneously believing that OPINIONS of the US Supreme Court are the supreme Law of the Land. They are NOT. According to a plain reading of the WRITTEN TEXT of the Article VI Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution [ www.constitutionus.com ], US Supreme Court OPINIONS are NOT the supreme Law of the Land. [ Note: The “Supremacy Clause” is actually all of Clause 2 of Article VI. ]

The very first sentence of Article I., Section 1. of the United States Constitution states that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

If ALL legislative Powers granted by the US Constitution are vested in the US Congress, then that leaves ZERO legislative Powers granted by the US Constitution vested in the US Supreme Court. It is NOT within the constitutional authority of the US Supreme Court to legislate, to make law. The Oath of Office of officeholders is to uphold the WRITTEN TEXT of the United States Constitution, NOT the OPINIONS of five members of the US Supreme Court !

These concepts have been repeatedly upheld by United States Presidents ( Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln ), and constitutional scholars, authors, and attorneys:

Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson:
The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the Constitution

http://christianlifeandliberty.net/CONLAW05.DOC
” In 1788, James Madison wrote, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” ”
https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-principles/statement-calling-for-constitutional-resistance-to-obergefell-v-hodges%E2%80%AF/

On March 4, 1861, in his First Inaugural Address, President Abraham Lincoln said:

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

[ Note: Lincoln was referring to the US Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott case ( 1857 ) OPINION, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, which not only denied the slave Dred Scott freedom and citizenship, but also reached back 37 years to arrogate to itself the authority to declare the 1820 Missouri Compromise passed by the United States Congress, to be unconstitutional. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 ” regulated slavery in the country’s western territories by prohibiting the practice in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30 north, except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri .” [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise ]. Despite the ruling of the US Supreme Court declaring the 1820 Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional, and declaring the US Congress could not ban Slavery in the western territories, the United States Congress and President Abraham Lincoln did just that. On June 19, 1862, the United States Congress ” ended slavery in the western territories.” The text of this “law enacting emancipation in the Federal Territories” is posted here.

The pertinent point here is: The United States Congress and the United States President DEFIED the OPINION of the US Supreme Court. ]
“Abortion is not legal” – Christine Ross and Herbert W. Titus, JD
LIFE ADVOCATE, MAY/JUNE 1999
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/HerbTitus0501.doc

Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges
https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-principles/statement-calling-for-constitutional-resistance-to-obergefell-v-hodges%E2%80%AF/
October 8, 2015
[ 72 Law Professors and Others Reject Obergefell as “binding precedent” except for “specific plaintiffs” to case” ]

2. This year 2016 is an election year for all 46 SC Senate seats and all 124 SC House of Representatives seats. The SC Election Commission 2016 Election Calendar lists the beginning of the filing period for all candidates seeking a political party nomination for the office of SC State Senate and SC State House of Representatives ( and other federal and local offices ) to be March 16, 2016. This filing period closes at 12 noon on March 30, 2016.

3. The SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment is filed in the SC House ( H.4093 ) and the SC Senate ( S.719 ).

a. SC House of Representatives – H.4093

(1) In the SC House of Representatives, H.4093 has 53 co-sponsors, plus two more Representatives who have signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge, but who have not signed on yet as co-sponsors, for a total of 55 members of the SC House of Representatives who are supporting the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the elected Representatives are needed ( 2/3 of 124 ) to pass H.4093 to place the SC Personhood Amendment on the General Election Ballot in South Carolina on November 8, 2016, for the people to vote.

(2) Two-thirds of 124 rounds up to 83 Representatives. Presently 55 have indicated their support, leaving 28 more who are needed out of the remaining 69 Representatives in the SC House. [ The SC House is currently made up of a total of 78 Republicans and 46 Democrats. ]
b. SC Senate – S.719

(1) In the SC Senate, S.719 has 11 co-sponsors, plus three more Senators who have signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge, but who have not signed on yet as co-sponsors, for a total of 14 members of the SC Senate who are supporting the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the elected Senators are needed ( 2/3 of 45 presently, with one seat vacant; normally 2/3 of 46 ) to pass the S.719 to place the Personhood Amendment on the General Election Ballot in South Carolina on November 8, 2016, for the people to vote.

(2) Two-thirds of 45 is 30 Senators [ 2/3 of 46 rounds up to 31 Senators. ] Presently 14 have indicated their support, leaving at least 16 currently [ possibly 17 later ] more who are needed out of the present remaining 31 Senators [ possibly 32 remaining Senators later if the vacant seat is filled ] in the SC Senate. [ The SC Senate is currently made up of a total of 27 Republicans and 18 Democrats, with one seat vacant. ]
4. List of all THIRTEEN ( 13 ) REPUBLICAN SC SENATORS who have neither yet co-sponsored S.719, nor have they signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge in support of S.719. The Senator’s District Number, and the Counties which are included in that Senate District, are listed after each Senator’s name. ( Most Counties are divided between Senate Districts. )

[ Members of the SC Senate – http://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?chamber=S ]

Thomas C. Alexander – District 1 – Oconee & Pickens Counties – Map

Sean Bennett – District 38 – Berkeley, Charleston & Dorchester Counties – Map

Paul G. Campbell, Jr. – District 44 – Berkeley, Charleston & Dorchester Counties – Map

George E. “Chip” Campsen, III – District 43 – Beaufort, Charleston & Colleton Counties – Map

Raymond E. Cleary, III – District 34 – Charleston, Georgetown & Horry Counties – Map

John E. Courson – District 20 – Lexington & Richland Counties – Map

Tom Davis – District 46 – Beaufort & Jasper Counties – Map

Greg Hembree – District 28 – Dillon & Horry Counties – Map

Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr. – District 31 – Darlington & Florence Counties – Map

Larry A. Martin – District 2 – Pickens County – Map

Harvey S. Peeler, Jr. – District 14 – Cherokee, Spartanburg, Union & York Counties – Map

Luke A. Rankin – District 33 – Horry County – Map

Paul Thurmond – District 41 – Charleston & Dorchester Counties – Map

_________________________________________

“Pro-Personhood is Pro-Life“

If your SC State Senator is listed above among the 13 Republican State Senators who have neither yet co-sponsored S.719, nor have they signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge in support of S.719, please contact / visit them immediately and continually, reminding
them that the language of this Personhood Amendment is virtually identical verbatim to the language of Republican Advisory Question #1 on the June 2014 Republican Primary Ballot, which passed by over 78% statewide ( 2014 Statewide Primary Election, go to page 10 ), with over 240,000 Republican Primary voters voting in favor.

Tell your Senator, Let the People Vote !!!

( See February 4, 2016 “Open Letter to REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators ( 27 )” below and posted here. )

Even if an individual Senator is personally opposed to SC Personhood Legislation
( e.g., Senator Larry Martin ( R-Pickens ) and Senator George “Chip” Campsen, III
( R – Beaufort, Charleston & Colleton ), remind them, in the concluding words of
the February 4, 2016 letter sent to them: LET THE PEOPLE VOTE !!!

” Open Letter to REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators ( 27 )”
[ Excerpt ]

“Over the past 17 years of introducing Personhood BILLS in the SC Legislature ( 1998-2015 ), the General assembly has failed to establish justice for pre-birth human beings by actually passing any of these bills in both chambers. S.719 introduced on April 28, 2015 is the first time a proposed Personhood Constitutional AMENDMENT has been introduced. It is time to LET THE PEOPLE VOTE !!!”

2016 Elections GOP Candidates Personhood

Correction/Revision – Ted Cruz on Personhood? – Views of American Right to Life, Christians for Personhood, PersonhoodUSA

February 20, 2016 Published by: personhood

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
February 20, 2016

Correction/Revision –

Ted Cruz on Personhood? – Views of American Right to Life, Christians for Personhood, PersonhoodUSA

______________________
______________________

Correction/Revision –

Add:

Later in this same new video Ted Cruz did pledge, as President of the United States, “That I will sign any legislation put on my desk to defend the least of these including legislation that defends the rights of all persons without exception other than [ i.e., EXCEPT ] the life of the mother, from conception to natural death.”

Note however, any “exceptions” to legal personhood nullify, destroy the legal concept, destroy the personhood legal argument.

Ted Cruz is an intelligent Harvard trained lawyer. Most certainly he knows the significance of the legal term “person”.

Even Black’s Law Dictionary (2009), used by attorneys, defines “Person” as “A Human Being”. So, Person = Human Being.

[ See ‘Additional Links’ below for several postings dealing with the so-called “life of the mother” issue from a medical standpoint. ]

So while Ted Cruz says in his new video, “I enthusiastically support that Resolution”, referring to a June 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question, does he also support these present 2015-2016 SC Bills/Resolutions ( i.e., S.719, H .4093 ) to actually amend the South Carolina State Constitution ( i.e., not just the 2014 Advisory Question ) ?

If he does, then he would be supporting something that contradicts with what he says later in this same video, as addressed above, about supporting an exception for the life of the mother; because S.719, H .4093 do not have an exception for the life of the mother. If they did, they would cease to be true “personhood” bills, and they would become meaningless, as any exception to personhood nullifies, destroys, the personhood legal concept.

Add:

“Pro-Life is Pro-Personhood” !

Christians for Personhood:

The standard for identifying whether or not a candidate is “Pro-Life” is whether or not the candidate commits to support the
legal Personhood of pre-birth human beings IN LAW, at fertilization (conception), and that without “exceptions”, because
God’s Word says, “Thou shalt not kill ( murder ).” Exodus 20:13, KJV.

Being “Pro-Life” is agreeing with God regarding the Sanctity of Human Life which He created.

Add under: Additional links:

8) Pro-Life Without Exception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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.

9) No Exceptions
Dr. Patrick Johnston, Abortion and Healthcare
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/no-exceptions/
Video – 6:18

10) Dr. Patrick Johnston, Director, Assn. of Pro-Life Physicians, Statement S.457 Senate Judiciary Subcomm. Hearing
March 13, 2014
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2014-03-13-Dr-Patrick-Johnston-Statement-S457-SJSubcomm-Hearing-March-13-2014.pdf
[ 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 (21:48) ]

11) Life of the Mother “Exception” by American Right to Life – http://americanrtl.org/life-of-the-mother-exception

12) 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

_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
February 19, 2016 / Corrected/Revised February 20, 2016

Ted Cruz on Personhood? – Views of American Right to Life, Christians for Personhood, PersonhoodUSA

Ted Cruz has posted a new video where he says “I enthusiastically support that Resolution”, referring to a June 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question which asked voters to vote “Yes” or “No” on language adding a personhood amendment to the South Carolina Constitution. Statewide, this Advisory Question passed by over 78%, with over 240,000 Republican Primary voters saying “Yes”.

However, neither Ted Cruz in his new video, nor PersonhoodUSA in their Feb. 17, 2016 MEDIA ADVISORY below, say anything about the ACTUAL SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment ( S.719, H .4093 ) which has nearly the identical, verbatim language of the 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question; which bills are being currently promoted by Christians for Personhood, Personhood South Carolina, and Voice of the Unborn, RIGHT NOW, in February 2016 !

Note however, any “exceptions” to legal personhood nullify, destroy the legal concept, destroy the personhood legal argument.

Ted Cruz is an intelligent Harvard trained lawyer. Most certainly he knows the significance of the legal term “person”.

Even Black’s Law Dictionary (2009), used by attorneys, defines “Person” as “A Human Being”. So, Person = Human Being.

[ See ‘Additional Links:’ below for several postings dealing with the so-called “life of the mother” issue from a medical standpoint. ]

If he does, then he would be supporting something that contradicts with what he says later in this same video, as addressed above, about his support for an exception for the life of the mother; because S.719, H .4093 do not have an exception for the life of the mother. If they did, they would cease to be true “personhood” bills, and they would become meaningless, as any exception to personhood nullifies, destroys, the personhood legal concept.

In fact, in a YouTube video posted January 8, 2016 recording Ted Cruz while campaigning in Iowa, Ted Cruz specifically said, “I have not supported personhood legislation because I think, and the pro-life community is divided on this, but I think personhood legislation can be counterproductive because it focuses on issues that are unrelated to protecting unborn children [ sic ], …” [ At 10:45 into YouTube video ]

In over three years as a United States Senator, Ted Cruz has never sponsored, nor co-sponsored any Personhood Bills in the United States Senate. [ Presently, there are two principled Personhood Bills in the US House: HR 426 and HR 2761 – each bill can be viewed at www.Congress.gov. HR 2761 has the added feature of invoking the authority and power of the United States Congress to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, as per Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. ]

American Right to Life has posted a detailed report and analysis of the contradictory positions taken by Ted Cruz on “abortion”
at: http://prolifeprofiles.com/ted-cruz-abortion

Ted Cruz
Presidential Candidate
Tier 2 – Personhood Whenever

As a Republican primary candidate, Ted Cruz has taken contradictory positions on abortion and it is sobering to realize that his effort to get votes from the Republican base could explain this behavior.

__________________________
__________________________

“Pro-Life is Pro-Personhood” !

Christians for Personhood:

The standard for identifying whether or not a candidate is “Pro-Life” is whether or not the candidate commits to support the legal Personhood of pre-birth human beings IN LAW, at fertilization (conception), and that without “exceptions”, because God’s Word says, “Thou shalt not kill ( murder ).” Exodus 20:13, KJV.

Being “Pro-Life” is agreeing with God regarding the Sanctity of Human Life which He created.

____________________________
____________________________

Additional links:

1) Introduction of S.719 in SC Senate – April 28, 2015 – Christians for Personhood press release

2) Introduction of H.4093 in SC House – April 30, 2015 – Christians for Personhood press release

3) Personhood Questionnaire for 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates
December 29, 2015 – Christians for Personhood report

4) No Completed Personhood Questionnaires Received from 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates
January 27, 2016 – Christians for Personhood report

5) Open Letter to REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators ( 27 )
Subj: County Results for Republican Advisory Q #1, June 2014 Republican Primary
February 5, 2016 – Christians for Personhood Open Letter

6) Ted Cruz Does Not Support Personhood Legislation
February 6, 2016 – Christians for Personhood report

7) SC Personhood Amendment – 52 House, 13 Senate members in support but 2/3 needed [ 83 in House, at least 30 in Senate ]
February 15, 2016 – Christians for Personhood report

8) Pro-Life Without Exception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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.

9) No Exceptions
Dr. Patrick Johnston, Abortion and Healthcare
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/no-exceptions/
Video – 6:18

10) Dr. Patrick Johnston, Director, Assn. of Pro-Life Physicians, Statement S.457 Senate Judiciary Subcomm. Hearing
March 13, 2014
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2014-03-13-Dr-Patrick-Johnston-Statement-S457-SJSubcomm-Hearing-March-13-2014.pdf
[ 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 (21:48) ]

11) Life of the Mother “Exception” by American Right to Life – http://americanrtl.org/life-of-the-mother-exception

12) 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

_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________

PersonhoodUSA press release:

79% of South Carolina GOP Voters Support Personhood
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1216777437.html

____________________________________

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016
From: Christian Newswire <newsdesk@christiannewswire.com>
Subject: 79% of South Carolina GOP Voters Support Personhood

79% of South Carolina GOP Voters Support Personhood

Contact: Jennifer Mason, Personhood USA, 303-803-0598

MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 17, 2016 / Christian Newswire/ — A new video from Senator Ted Cruz affirms South Carolina’s Personhood resolution, in which 79% of Republicans called for a Personhood amendment to the state constitution.

Cruz states that he would support legislation like South Carolina’s Personhood resolution, which he mentioned specifically. In a crowded Republican race, it’s noteworthy that Personhood USA’s resolution passed with a higher percentage than any presidential GOP candidate has ever won with in South Carolina.

The question read: “Should Article I, Section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution be amended to include the following language? The privileges and immunities of citizens of South Carolina and the United States shall not be abridged, so that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. These rights shall extend to both born and pre-born persons beginning at conception.”

Personhood USA’s resolution in South Carolina passed by a landslide majority, gathering nearly a quarter of a million affirmative votes, and was the largest show of support by percentage in any public vote held on personhood.

“Candidates in the presidential race cannot forget that 79% of the base in South Carolina believes that preborn children deserve full legal protection,” stated Jennifer Mason, Personhood USA Communications Director. “Truly pro-life candidates must not lose sight of the fact that the majority of South Carolina voters in the primary have already voted in support of full personhood rights for unborn children.”

Ted Cruz Video Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQlmvEQFgV4

[ Edited ]

News Story

South Carolinians aim to put personhood for the unborn on the ballot in 2016

June 4, 2015 Published by: Angela Wittman

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/south-carolinians-aim-to-put-personhood-for-the-unborn-on-the-ballot-in-201

May 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Citizens of South Carolina will get to vote in November 2016 on whether the state should recognize unborn life from conception if a constitutional amendment introduced Wednesday in the state’s Senate gets lawmakers’ approval.

It’s the first time the state has attempted to enact a personhood amendment to the state’s constitution. Personhood bills, however, have been introduced in the legislature every year since 1998, without success.

The amendment, Joint Resolution S. 719, filed by Republican Senator Lee Bright, will need to pass with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the legislature, for it to be allowed to then go before South Carolina citizens for a vote.

“It is time to let the people vote,” pro-life advocate and Christians for Personhood Executive Director Steve Lefemine said in a statement.

Bright, along with fellow GOP Senators Ronnie Cromer, Mike Fair, Larry Grooms, and Danny Verdin, pre-filed another similar bill, S. 129, last December, according to FitsNews.com.

That measure seeks personhood through a vote in the legislature, and holds “that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws” and that these rights “vest at fertilization for each born and preborn human person.”

The S. 129 bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 13, and has still yet to receive a hearing.

With constitutional amendment S. 719 South Carolina residents could have the opportunity to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on the November 2016 ballot to afford the same privileges and immunities given citizens of South Carolina and the U.S., including the right to life and equal protection under the law.

Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!

It states:

Must Article I of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to add Section 3.a. to provide that the privileges and immunities of citizens of South Carolina and the United States shall not be abridged, so that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. These rights shall extend to both born and preborn persons beginning at conception?

South Carolina Republican voters approved a personhood constitutional amendment in June 2014 by more than 78 percent overall in the 45 counties where it appeared on the ballot. The wording is the same in the current amendment before the State Senate.

“So we are calling on South Carolina legislators, not only to let the people vote,” Lefemine said, “but to let the people vote on what over 240,000 Republican primary voters have already shown by their votes they believe.”

Next up for personhood constitutional amendment S. 719 is its assignment to a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee for a public hearing and potential passage.