“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.
Provided below are four examples of legal experts supporting State-level Personhood legislation in SC, MISS, ALA, and OK:
1) Herb Titus is an attorney, constitutional scholar, author, the founding Dean of College of Law/Gov’t at Regent University.
2) Mathew Staver is present Dean of the School of Law at Liberty University; and Liberty Counsel founder and chair.
Written Statement of Herb Titus supporting H.3252, “Right to Life Act of South Carolina” given to South Carolina House Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee on April 25, 2001
H.3252 – “Right to Life Act of South Carolina” (SC Personhood Bill in 2001-2002 Session of SC General Assembly)
(Herb Titus also testified at this SC House Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee hearing live by telephone)
Liberty Counsel – Legal Memorandum (pp. 1-4, 9-11) supporting Mississippi Personhood Amendment (2009)
Mississippi Amendment #26 – Personhood Constitutional Amendment ballot initiative certified for November 8, 2011 Mississippi State Election. / Mississippi Secretary of State – Elections | Initiatives – 26 Definition of a Person • PETITION FOR INITIATIVE MEASURE • TO AMEND THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION
Alabama Personhood Legislation Talking Points (HB409, HB405, SB301) (2011)
HB409 – Personhood Constitutional Amendment (House); HB405, SB301 – Personhood Statutes (House, Senate)
Source: Ben DuPré, Personhood Alabama c/o Foundation for Moral Law (April 12, 2011) [ Current posting ]
Foundation for Moral Law / The Adoption Law Firm – Amici Curiae Legal Brief in the Supreme Court of the U.S. defending Oklahoma Personhood Amendment blocked by OK State Supreme Court from reaching OK voters
PERSONHOOD OKLAHOMA v. BRITTANY MAYS BARBER, ET. AL., No. 12-145
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma; Submitted: August 31, 2012
Roy Moore, Ben DuPré, John Eidsmoe / Foundation for Moral Law; Sam McClure / The Adoption Law Firm
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 Amendment. The 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 ]
Prepared by Christians for Personhood http://ChristiansforPersonhood.com, PO Box 12222, Columbia, SC 29211,