Daily Archives: October 31, 2022

“Republican” Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey reported as saying the House version of H5399 “likely endangers” the state’s current abortion restrictions and he therefore “cannot support that.” What did he mean ? (The State, October 16, 2022)

Published by:

“Republican” Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey reported as saying the House version of H5399 “likely endangers” the state’s current abortion restrictions and he therefore “cannot support that.” What did he mean ? (The State, October 16, 2022)

     
______________________________________________________________

Note: 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 / S1335), not H5399.
______________________________________________________________

Shane Massey (EDGEFIELD)

What is Senator Massey referring to that is either included in, or omitted from, the House version of H5399 that allegedly “likely endangers” the state’s current incremental “abortion” restrictions, causing him to be reported as saying he cannot support that aspect of the House version of H5399 ?

Is it the fact the House version of H5399 does not repeal Section 44-41-20 of the current SC Code of Laws, which the SC Supreme Court described in its August 17, 2022 Order enjoining the SC Heartbeat Law as, the “codification of Roe ?
_______________________________________________

As for Senator Massey’s reported criticism that ‘the House version “likely endangers” the state’s current abortion restrictions’; that could be fixed during the deliberations of the current H5399 House-Senate Conference Committee, of which Senator Massey is chairman as the senior Senator, 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).

         

Was Senator Massey’s reason for not supporting the House version on October 18 a smokescreen ? The failure so far of the SC Legislature to fix what the SC State Supreme Court identified as a legitimate problem over two months ago (i.e., Section 44-41-20 still being in the SC Code of Laws) in the very first paragraph of its August 17, 2022 Order could have been promptly remedied by passing separate, stand-alone legislation with the cooperation of the SC House and SC Senate. Or does Senator Massey also have other additional reasons for not supporting the House version of H5399 ? Did Senator Massey express other objections to the media that were not reported in the article in The State, October 16, 2022 ?

On October 18, 2022, Senator Massey did in fact vote against the Motion to Recede from the Senate version of H5399 (which would have in effect passed the House version of H5399):

‘SC Senate in Effect Refuses to Even Shut Down Any “Abortion” Centers in South Carolina, by a vote of 17 Y to 26 N (3 Not Voting)
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2022/10/19/sc-senate-in-effect-refuses-to-shut-down-any-abortion-centers-in-south-carolina-by-a-vote-of-17-y-to-26-n-3-not-voting/

The failure so far of the SC Legislature to fix what the SC State Supreme Court identified as a problem over two months ago in the very first paragraph of its August 17, 2022 Order could be remedied when the H5399 House-Senate Conference Committee meets Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 2pm in Room 105 of the Gressette Building, if at least two Senators and at least two Representatives on the six-man* Conference Committee choose to do so. [ * Senators: Massey, Cash, Matthews; Representatives: Pope, McCravy, Wetmore ]

South Carolina Judicial Branch
The Supreme Court of South Carolina
Order 2022-08-17-01
https://www.sccourts.org/courtOrders/displayOrder.cfm?orderNo=2022-08-17-01

“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, 410 U.S. 113, 153-54 (1973), overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). The South Carolina legislature responded in 1974 by essentially codifying the Roe framework. See Act No. 1215, 1974 S.C. Acts 2837 (codified as amended in scattered sections of S.C Code Ann. §§ 44-41-10 to -80) (2018)).1  In 2021, the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act (the Act) was enacted.  See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 44-41-610 to -740 (Supp. 2021).  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)] or any otherwise applicable provision of South Carolina law regulating or restricting abortion.” It necessarily follows that the codification of Roe in section 44-41-20 remains part of the public policy of this state, notwithstanding the recent Act.  This legislative history, combined with the result in Dobbs, brings us to the current dispute in the Court’s original jurisdiction.” [ Emphasis added ]
_______________________________________________

Note: This problem highlights the continued inclusion of the Roe 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 “abortion” in South Carolina for over 25 years.
_______________________________________________

For the record, why was this problem of the ongoing “codification of Roe” in the SC Code of Laws (Section 44-41-20. Legal Abortions.), as described in the August 17, 2022 Order of the SC State Supreme Court, not remedied earlier than only in the very last (Amendment 5399R038) watered-down, revised six-week Heartbeat Bill version of H5399 passed by the Senate on Third Reading on September 8, 2022 ?

Why was it not remedied in the previous version (Amendment 5399R030) offered by Senator Massey on September 8, which was filibustered by Senator Tom Davis (BEAUFORT) and which fell short by two votes of receiving sufficient votes for Senator Massey’s cloture motion to succeed to stop the filibuster ? (SC Senate Journal, September 8, 2022)

‘These are the FACES of the Five (5) “Republican” Senators whose votes September 8 PERPETUATED Mass Genocide by “Abortion” in South Carolina’s Death Camps; and of Senator Luke Rankin who suddenly departed (fled?) the Senate Chamber on “Leave” before the critical vote that day’ http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2022/10/27/these-are-the-faces-of-the-five-5-republican-senators-whose-votes-september-8-perpetuated-mass-genocide-by-abortion-in-south-carolinas-death-camps-and-of-senator-luke-rankin-who-suddenly/ 

Why was it not remedied previously in the SC Senate by Amendment on either September 7 or September 8 ? (SC Senate Journals; September 8, 2022 and September 8, 2022)

Why was it not remedied in the Senate Medical Affairs Committee on September 6 ?

Why did the SC House of Representatives not remedy this problem prior to either August 30 (Second Reading) or August 31 (Third Reading) ?

The SC State Supreme Court identified the problem in the very first paragraph of its August 17, 2022 Order.
_______________________________________________

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 / S1335), not H5399.

 

God says,
“THOU SHALT NOT KILL (MURDER).”
Exodus 20:13, KJV

ChristiansforPersonhood.com