Category Archives: GOP Candidates

Two Republican Pro-Personhood Candidates for SC Senate District #20 – Version #2

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
August 3, 2018  [ To be posted online at: ChristiansforPersonhood.com ]

Posted Printable PDF:
Two Republican Pro-Personhood Candidates for SC Senate District #20 – Version #2
– Primary August 14: Benjamin Dunn, Christian Stegmaier
August 3, 2018


Two Republican Pro-Personhood Candidates for SC Senate District #20

– Primary August 14: Benjamin Dunn, Christian Stegmaier – Version #2

________________________________
________________________________

There are four Republican candidates running in the August 14 Primary of the SC State Senate District 20 Special Election.  Two* of these Republican candidates are confirmed supporters of SC Personhood Legislation:

Benjamin Dunn

Christian Stegmaier

* Note: Both of these men are professing Christians and attorneys.

_____________________________________
_____________________________________

The purpose of Personhood legislation is to establish justice for all pre-birth human beings, recognizing the Creator God-given unalienable right to life of every human being as a “person”, in law, at fertilization, and that without exception, because God’s Word says, “Thou shalt not kill (murder).”  Exodus 20:13, KJV

SC Senate District #20 includes parts of Richland and Lexington Counties; running from White Rock to Ballentine and Irmo, along I-26 and I-126, thru downtown Columbia, continuing southeast thru Shandon and other Columbia neighborhoods to I-77, and vicinity [ Map ].

____________________________________
____________________________________


                                                      TheStandardSC.org

Benjamin Dunn vying to represent
Republicans for Senate Seat #20

by Michael Reed | THE STANDARD
http://thestandardsc.org/benjamin-dunn-vying-to-represent-republicans-for-senate-seat-20
August 1, 2018

[ Excerpts, emphasis added ]

Dunn says that “Roe v [W]ade may very well be overturned in the next few years. If so, it will be kicked back to the states to decide.”

Continued…

He says, “… I support the personhood bill in S.C. S.217 [.”]

_______________________________________
_______________________________________

Letter signed by Christian Stegmaier received and publicized by Personhood South Carolina ( Gaffney, SC ):

Stegmaier, SC Senate District 20 Candidate, Pledges Support for Personhood…


_______________________________________
_______________________________________

From Christians for Personhood:

The above “Dear Candidate” letter (July 18, 2018) from Personhood South Carolina contains this sentence: “This past legislative cycle’s personhood effort had companion bills (S217, H3530) making significant progress in both the House and Senate.” This statement is only half true.  It is true the Senate Bill S217 did see significant progress in the SC Senate in 2017-2018 Session: S217 passed Subcommittee after two public hearings, S217 passed the full Senate Judiciary Committee, S217 was placed on the full SC Senate calendar, and the Judiciary Committee Amendment to S217 was actually approved on the Senate floor.  However, the House Bill H3530 on the other hand, never even had a public hearing in 2017, or in 2018.  And the historical record shows public hearings in Subcommittee have been held in the past for the SC House personhood bill; in 2001, in 2004, in 2005, in 2008 (then-SC Attorney General Henry McMaster also testified at this hearing), and in 2010.  The SC House personhood bill passed out of Subcommittee in both 2004 and 2005.  In 2005, the personhood bill also passed the full House Judiciary Committee (still unamended), before being amended on the floor of the full SC House of Representatives with a fatal flaw so-called “morning-after-pill” (chemical abortifacient) rape “exception” [sic] amendment, then passed the full SC House of Representatives on Second and Third Readings, and was then sent to the SC Senate where two public hearings were held, no vote taken, and it died.

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina ( 1998 – 2016 )

______________________________
______________________________

Two Republican Pro-Personhood Candidates for SC Senate District #20 – Version #2
– Primary August 14: Benjamin Dunn, Christian Stegmaier
August 3, 2018

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

Published by:

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 !

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.”  [ emphasis, comment added ]

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 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, 2015Christians 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 ]

Ted Cruz Does Not Support Personhood Legislation

Published by:

(Video) Iowa   [ “Pro-Life is Pro-Personhood” ! ]   – Ted Cruz does NOT support Personhood legislation !!!

– Ted Cruz supports “legal, and unencumbered” birth control (child-prevention);

   Cruz notes he and wife Heidi have (only) “two little girls”, says he is “very glad

   we don’t have seventeen [ seven ?].” ***

__________________________

Canadian Ted Cruz takes TOUGH questions in IA. Gas Station https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfB7ShwtCZw Video – 17:10 Views – 45,322  ( as of Feb 6, 2016 ) Published on Jan 8, 2016

__________________________

Question to Ted Cruz on Personhood legislation ( At 10:45 into YouTube video below ):

[ commentary added in brackets [  ]  ]

Female questioner (recording with mobile device): “And I was wondering if you could tell me real fast what your stance is on so-called personhood legislation.”

[Cruz campaign worker in close proximity with arm extended prepared to move Cruz to next questioner.]

Ted Cruz:  “Um, I believe we should protect every human life, from the moment of conception to the moment of death. [ ? ] 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 ], and I think our focus should be valuing and cherishing every human life.” [ sic – that is exactly what personhood legislation does !!! ]

[Cruz campaign worker moves in closer to move Cruz on to next questioner, and speaks to female questioner.] 

Female questioner: “OK, and will that impact what kind of birth control you think should be legal?”

Ted Cruz:  “I believe that birth control should be legal, and unencumbered.  And, and there are a lot of folks in politics that try to paint a false picture, they try to scare people to suggest that their politician’s trying to go after their birth control.  It’s not true.  It is a made-up threat.  As I have observed more than once, my wife Heidi and I, we have two little girls. I’m very glad we don’t have seventeen [ seven ?].”

[ *** It is believed he said seventeen, Cruz married Heidi in 2001 ]

Cruz campaign worker now actually breaks in and says “Thank you, appreciate it” to break off her conversation with Ted Cruz. As Cruz walks to next questioner, the Cruz campaign worker whispers something in Cruz’s ear. 

Cruz says back, appearing annoyed, “Yes, I know that.” [ Total time with this female questioner was just over one minute: 10:45 – 11:50 on YouTube video ]

_________________________

_________________________

 

– DID TED CRUZ LIE TO GEORGIA RIGHT TO LIFE WHEN HE SIGNED PERSONHOOD PLEDGE ?

Georgia Right to Life PAC Endorses Ted Cruz for President http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/822076498.html [ Excerpts, emphasis added ]

NORCROSS, Ga., Aug. 8, 2015 –  

Senator Cruz received the endorsement after reviewing his activities supporting personhood and receiving his signed GRTL PAC Personhood Affirmation, which asks that candidates support a personhood amendment  to the U.S. Constitution.    

Such an amendment would guarantee a constitutional right to life for every innocent human being, from earliest    biological beginning until natural death.   [ continued… ]