Edited and Revised Oct 18, 2022 \/ Corrected Oct 21, 2022<\/p>\n
“PRO-LIFE” [sic]<\/em> THEATER IN SC: “Republican” Leaders and Media Fail to State Publicly the SAME NUMBER OF SENATE VOTES CAST SEPT 8 FOR H5399 CLOTURE (24) IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR SENATE TO APPROVE HOUSE VERSION IN SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE ON OCT 18\u00a0(Although House Version is Also Unjust)<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 10\/21\/22 Correction: Added the words (Although House Version is Also Unjust)<\/p>\n Note<\/span><\/u>: Neither the SC House nor the SC Senate versions of H5399 establish legal recognition of personhood for preborn children at fertilization, and therefore neither version provides for equal protection of the laws, and therefore neither version establishes Justice. The just course of action for the SC House and SC Senate to take is to pass the Personhood Act of SC (H5401<\/a> \/ S1335<\/a>), not H5399.<\/span><\/strong> On September 8, 2022, the Senate Majority Leader Senator Shane Massey (EDGEFIELD) proposed a version of H5399 which was substantively very similar to the SC House version, with the primary difference being an additional “exception” to banning the murder of children in the womb. This H5399 version would have banned approximately 97% (using State of Florida 2020 statistics<\/a>) of surgical and RU486 “abortions”. An attempt to Table this version failed on a 20 Y to 24 N vote.\u00a0 Since the Tabling motion failed, pro-“abortion” Senator Tom Davis (BEAUFORT) began to filibuster Senator Massey’s proposal.<\/span><\/p>\n After only about 20 minutes of Senator Davis’ “filibuster”, Senator Massey called for a Cloture vote to stop the threatened filibuster. The SC Senate came within two votes of doing so<\/u>.<\/b> The Cloture vote was 24 Y to 20 N to end the filibuster, but under Senate Rules, 26 votes were needed. There are 30 “Republicans” in the SC Senate. These five pro-“abortion” <\/b><\/span>“Republicans” voted against Cloture on the H5399 version which would have banned 97% of surgical and RU486 “abortions”: Senators Tom Davis<\/a> (BEAUFORT), Penry Gustafson<\/a> (KERSHAW), Greg Hembree<\/a> (HORRY), Sandy Senn<\/a> (CHARLESTON), <\/b>and Katrina Shealy<\/a> (LEXINGTON). <\/b>The sixth “Republican” who failed to vote for cloture was Senator Luke<\/a> Rankin<\/a> (HORRY) <\/b>who departed (fled?) the Senate chamber about 25 minutes before the cloture vote on “Leave” *** (!?).<\/span><\/p>\n The Senate then passed its watered-down, revised six-week Heartbeat Bill version of H5399, which would ban approximately 52% (using 2021 SC <\/a>DHEC<\/a> statistics<\/a>) of surgical and RU486 “abortions” in South Carolina.<\/span><\/p>\n *** SC Senate Journal – September 8, 2022 ‘SC House Non-Concurs with SC Senate’s watered-down, revised six-week Heartbeat Bill version of H5399 – September 27, 2022; Bill H5399 now goes back to the SC Senate; SC Senate returns for Special Session October 18, 2022’ The Bill H5399 now goes back to the SC Senate. The SC Senate has been called back to return for a Special Session on October 18, 2022<\/a>. The SC Senate then must first decide whether to “Insist” on its version of H5399<\/a>, in which case the Bill would be given to a six-man Conference Committee ( three Representatives, three Senators ) to attempt to work out a compromise which both the House and the Senate can accept; or, alternatively, on October 18, the SC Senate could decide, to not<\/u> “Insist” on its version of H5399<\/a>, but to “Recede” from its version, which in effect, allows the House version of H5399<\/a> to pass, and to be sent to SC Governor Henry McMaster. The House version of H5399<\/a> would ban approximately 98% (using State of Florida 2020 statistics<\/a>) of surgical and RU486 “abortions”.<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE NOT<\/u> HEARING STATED PUBLICLY BY EITHER THE SENATE “REPUBLICAN” MAJORITY LEADER <\/span>SHANE MASSEY (EDGEFIELD), NOR<\/u> FROM THE SC GOVERNOR <\/span>HENRY McMASTER, NOR<\/u> FROM THE SC LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR <\/span>PAM EVETTE, NOR<\/u> FROM THE SC SENATE PRESIDENT <\/span>THOMAS ALEXANDER (OCONEE), NOR<\/u> FROM THE SC HOUSE SPEAKER <\/span>MURRELL SMITH (SUMTER), NOR<\/u> REPORTED WITHIN THE ARTICLE<\/a> FROM THE STATE<\/em> (ABOVE):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n It is important to understand that at this point procedurally on October 18, A SIMPLE<\/u> MAJORITY<\/u> OF THE SC SENATE WILL DECIDE WHETHER TO “INSIST” UPON OR NOT<\/u> TO “INSIST” UPON (TO “RECEDE” FROM) THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H5399 MADE ON SEPTEMBER 8. <\/span>There will be a Motion on the SC Senate floor by Republican Majority Leader Shane<\/a> Massey<\/a> (Edgefield) either to “Insist” or to “Recede”, <\/strong>and a vote will be taken, without debate (which means no potential filibuster).<\/strong> A simple majority vote determines the outcome<\/u>.<\/b> South Carolina Judicial Branch<\/strong> “<\/span><\/b>In 1973, the United States Supreme Court recognized in the Constitution a woman’s right to an abortion as a matter of privacy. See Roe v. Wade,<\/em> 410 U.S. 113, 153-54 (1973), overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.,<\/em> 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). The South Carolina legislature responded in 1974 by essentially codifying the Roe<\/em> framework. <\/b><\/span> See<\/em> Act No. 1215, 1974 S.C. Acts 2837 (codified as amended in scattered sections of S.C. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 44-41-10 to -80) (2018)).<\/a>1 \u00a0In 2021, the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act (the Act) was enacted.\u00a0 See<\/em> S.C. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 44-41-610 to -740 (Supp. 2021).\u00a0 Section 44 41 710 of the Act provides that its enactment “must not be construed to repeal, by implication or otherwise, Section 44-41-20 [(the codification of Roe<\/em>)]<\/b><\/span> or any otherwise applicable provision of South Carolina law regulating or restricting abortion.”\u00a0 It necessarily follows that the codification of Roe<\/em> in section 44-41-20 remains part of the public policy of this state, <\/b><\/span>notwithstanding the recent Act.\u00a0 This legislative history, combined with the result in Dobbs,<\/em> brings us to the current dispute in the Court’s original jurisdiction.” [ Emphasis added ] Neither the SC House nor the SC Senate versions of H5399 establish Justice. Without the legal recognition of personhood for preborn children at fertilization, neither version provides for equal protection of the laws, and are therefore unjust pieces of legislation. The just course of action for the SC House and SC Senate to take is to pass the Personhood Act of SC (H5401<\/a> \/ S1335<\/a>), not H5399.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n God says,<\/strong><\/p>\n “Thou shalt not kill (murder).”<\/strong><\/p>\n Exodus 20:13, KJV<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n________________________________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>The State <\/span><\/i>[Columbia, SC]
\n‘Gov. McMaster says agreement on tighter abortion restrictions in SC “might take some time” ‘
\n<\/b>https:\/\/www.thestate.com\/news\/politics-government\/article267302977.html
\n<\/a><\/span>UPDATED OCTOBER 16, 2022<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/b>https:\/\/scstatehouse.gov\/sess124_2021-2022\/sj22\/20220908.htm
\n<\/span><\/a>___________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span><\/b>On Tuesday, September 27<\/a>, the SC House, by a vote of 95 to 11<\/a>, non-concurred with the SC Senate’s watered-down version of H5399<\/a>, which the Senate had amended on September 8<\/a> into a revised six-week Heartbeat Bill:<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/b>http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/2022\/10\/03\/sc-house-non-concurs-with-sc-senates-watered-down-revised-six-week-heartbeat-bill-version-of-h5399-september-27-2022-bill-h5399-now-goes-back-to-the-sc-senate-sc-senate-returns-for-special-ses\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n
\n______________________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>‘Gov. McMaster says agreement on tighter abortion restrictions in SC “might take some time” ‘
\n<\/span><\/b>https:\/\/www.thestate.com\/news\/politics-government\/article267302977.html
\n<\/a><\/span>UPDATED OCTOBER 16, 2022
\n<\/span>Excerpt:
\n<\/span>
\n<\/b><\/span>‘And in an emailed legislative update sent Friday (10\/14) by Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, the Edgefield Republican and self-described “pro-life” [sic – supports “exceptions”]<\/em> senator further cleared up the bill’s chances of passing.’
\n
\n<\/span>‘Massey, who supports an abortion ban but ultimately voted for the Senate version of the bill last month after Republicans failed to find enough support for a near-total ban, said the House version “likely endangers” the state’s current abortion restrictions and he therefore “cannot support that.” ‘
\n___________________________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>As for Senator Massey’s reported criticism that “the House version ‘likely endangers’ the state’s current abortion restrictions”, that could be quickly fixed by separate legislation if there was the will to do so in the SC House and SC Senate, by repealing Section 44-41-20 of the 1976 Code and amending three other sections affected by that repeal (as is included in the version of H5399 passed by the Senate on September 8<\/a>). Senator Massey’s excuse for not supporting the House version on October 18 is a smokescreen.<\/span> The failure so far of the SC Legislature to fix what the SC State Supreme Court identified as a problem two months ago in the very first paragraph of its August 17, 2022 Order<\/a> could be promptly remedied by passing separate, stand-alone legislation with the cooperation of the SC House and SC Senate.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe Supreme Court of South Carolina<\/strong>
\nOrder 2022-08-17-01<\/strong>
\nhttps:\/\/www.sccourts.org\/courtOrders\/displayOrder.cfm?orderNo=2022-08-17-01<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n____________________________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>Note<\/u><\/strong>: This problem highlights the continued inclusion of the Roe<\/em> trimester framework in the SC Code of Laws [Section 44-41-20], and is yet another example of the bad fruit of incremental “abortion” regulation laws which have PERPETUATED<\/span> “abortion” in South Carolina for over 25 years.
\n____________________________________________________________<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n