![\"\"](\"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/2021-07-25-I-AM-A-PERSON-219x300.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
ROE v. WADE Opinion<\/a>, January 22, 1973:<\/strong> ____________________________________________ Argued<\/a>: <\/b>December 13, 1971 Appellee (Pro-Life)<\/span>:<\/b> Henry Wade<\/a><\/strong>, District Attorney of Dallas County, State of Texas<\/p>\n Appellant (Pro-“Abortion”)<\/span>:<\/b> Jane Roe (Norma <\/a>McCorvey<\/a><\/strong>*)<\/p>\n [ * Norma McCorvey later became a born-again Christian and a leading voice for the sanctity of life of the unborn, and against “abortion” ]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n ROE v. WADE Opinion<\/a>:<\/b><\/p>\n Part IX<\/strong><\/p>\n A. The appellee [ Texas ]<\/b> and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person”<\/b><\/span> within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u00a0 In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of<\/b> personhood <\/strong>is<\/strong> established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, <\/b>[410 U.S. 113, 157]\u00a0 <\/span><\/strong>for the fetus’ right to life would then be <\/strong>guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.<\/strong> The appellant <\/span>[ Jane Roe ]<\/b> conceded as much on reargument<\/span>. [FN 51] On the other hand, <\/span>the appellee conceded on reargument [FN 52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a <\/span>person <\/b>within<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u00a0 [ emphasis added; identification of parties to the case in brackets added ]<\/span><\/p>\n __________________________________________________ “And the basic constitutional question<\/b><\/span> initially<\/b><\/span> is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person,<\/b><\/span> isn’t it ?”<\/p>\n continued…<\/p>\n “It’s critical to this case,<\/b><\/span> is it not ?”<\/p>\n [ emphasis added ]<\/span><\/p>\n __________________________________________________ “And the basic constitutional question initially is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person,<\/b><\/span> isn’t it ?”<\/p>\n Texas Asst Attorney General Robert Flowers:<\/b><\/p>\n “Yes, and entirely to the constitutional perspective.”<\/p>\n US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:<\/b><\/p>\n “It’s critical to this case, is it not ?”<\/p>\n Texas Asst Attorney General Robert Flowers:<\/b><\/p>\n “Yes, sir, it is, …”<\/p>\n [ emphasis added ]<\/span><\/p>\n __________________________________________________ “… nor shall any person<\/b><\/span> be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person<\/b><\/span> be denied the equal protection of the laws.”<\/p>\n Constitution of the State of South Carolina, Article I, Section 3.<\/b><\/p>\n [ emphasis added ] SECTION 3. Privileges and immunities; due process; equal protection of laws.<\/strong><\/p>\n The privileges and immunities of citizens of this State and of the United States under this Constitution shall not be abridged, nor shall any person<\/b><\/span> be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person<\/b><\/span> be denied the equal protection of the laws. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.scstatehouse.gov\/scconstitution\/A01.pdf<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n [ emphasis added ]<\/span><\/p>\n __________________________________________________ “Murder” is the killing of any person<\/b><\/span> …<\/p>\n [ emphasis added ] South Carolina Code of Laws SECTION 16-3-10. “Murder” defined.<\/b><\/p>\n “Murder” is the killing of any person<\/b><\/span> with malice aforethought, either express or implied.<\/p>\n www.scstatehouse.gov\/code\/t16c003.php<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n [ emphasis added ]<\/span><\/p>\n __________________________________________________<\/p>\n The word “person”<\/span> is a legal term of art:<\/b><\/p>\n Black’s Law Dictionary (2009): Person = “A Human Being”<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n __________________________________________________<\/p>\n PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE<\/u><\/span> AND END<\/u><\/span> CHILD-MURDER BY “ABORTION” IN SOUTH CAROLINA WAS FIRST FILED IN THE SC LEGISLATURE NEARLY 24 YEARS AGO IN 1998, AND HAS BEEN ACTIVE EVERY YEAR SINCE: __________________________________________________ PASS PERSONHOOD<\/u><\/span> <\/strong>NOW !<\/strong> <\/p>\n God says,<\/b><\/p>\n “Thou shalt not kill (murder).”<\/strong><\/p>\n Exodus 20:13, KJV<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n ChristiansforPersonhood<\/a>.com<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Non-tax-deductible contributions may be sent to:<\/p>\n Christians for Personhood CP@spiritcom.net<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ROE v. WADE Opinion, January 22, 1973: “If … personhood is established, the [pro-“abortion”] case, of course, collapses, …” ROE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[120,53,119,54,57,5],"tags":[55,118,104,12,14,17,106],"class_list":["post-1389","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-2022-sc-legislature","category-abolitionism","category-establish-justice","category-interposition","category-justice","category-personhood","tag-abolish-abortion","tag-establish-justice","tag-interposition","tag-personhood","tag-roe-v-wade","tag-sc-general-assembly","tag-sc-governor"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1389","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1389"}],"version-history":[{"count":22,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1389\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1411,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1389\/revisions\/1411"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n<\/b><\/span>
\n<\/span>“If … personhood is established, the [pro-“abortion”] case, of course, collapses, …”<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>ROE v. WADE Opinion<\/a>: “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, <\/span>[410 U.S. 113, 157]\u00a0 <\/span>for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n
\n____________________________________________
\n<\/b><\/span>
\n<\/span>United States Supreme Court<\/strong>
\nROE v. WADE (1973)<\/strong>
\n<\/span>No. 70-18<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/b><\/span>Reargued<\/strong><\/a>:<\/strong> October 11, 1972
\n
\n<\/b><\/span>Decided:<\/strong> January 22, 1973
\nhttps:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/us-supreme-court\/410\/113.html<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>PERSONHOOD<\/span> is the KEY to <\/span>ENDING<\/u>\/ABOLISHING<\/u><\/span><\/strong> Child-Murder by “Abortion” in America<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart during the Second Oral Argument<\/a> of Roe v. Wade, on October 11, 1972:<\/b><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>Audio \/ ROE v. WADE
\nFULL SECOND ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE US SUPREME COURT
\n– October 11, 1972
\n<\/b>http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/2021\/11\/18\/audio-roe-v-wade-full-second-oral-argument-before-us-supreme-court-october-11-1972\/
\n<\/a><\/span>
\n<\/span>US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:<\/b><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina Constitutional Law:’
\n<\/b>http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/2021\/11\/05\/personhood-and-south-carolina-constitutional-<\/a><\/span>law\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>_________________
\n
\n<\/span>South Carolina Constitution
\n<\/a>ARTICLE I
\nDECLARATION OF RIGHTS<\/b><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina State Law:’
\n<\/b>http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/2021\/11\/02\/personhood-and-south-carolina-state-law<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>___________________________<\/p>\n
\n<\/b>Title 16 – Crimes and Offenses
\nChapter 3 – Offenses Against the Person
\nARTICLE I – Homicide<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/b>[ Report<\/a> ]
\n2021-2022 SC Personhood Bills, H.3568<\/a> and S.381<\/a>
\n– 23 Years<\/a> of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina
\n<\/b>April 26, 2021
\n
\n<\/span>History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998 – 2021)
\n<\/b>http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/2021\/11\/10\/history-of-personhood-legislation-in-south-carolina-1998-2021\/
\n<\/a><\/span>
\n<\/span>PERSONHOOD is the KEY to ENDING<\/u>\/ABOLISHING<\/u><\/span> Child-Murder by “Abortion” in South Carolina<\/b><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>Ignore Roe !
\n
\n<\/span>Interpose !
\n( LesserMagistrate.com<\/a> )
\n<\/b>
\n<\/span>Establish Justice, Now !
\n<\/i><\/b>
\n<\/span>END<\/u>\/ABOLISH<\/u><\/b><\/span> Child-Murder by “Abortion” Now !<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/i>
\n<\/span>“Personhood Act of South Carolina”
\n<\/b>( 2021-2022 Session of SC Legislature )
\n
\n<\/span>S.381
\nH.3568
\n<\/b>(scstatehouse.gov<\/b><\/a>)<\/p>\n
\nPO Box 12222
\nColumbia, SC 29211<\/p>\n