Category Archives: Incrementalism

[SC] Transcript: Personhood Amendment Ruled Non-Germane to Incremental Child-Murder Regulation ‘Heartbeat’ Bill by Republican Speaker Lucas and Republican Pro Tempore Pope on Point of Order – SC House of Representatives, Columbia, SC – April 24, 2019

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
June 4, 2019

SC House of Representatives
Columbia, SC – April 24, 2019

Transcript: Personhood Amendment Ruled Non-Germane to Incremental Child-Murder Regulation  ‘HeartbeatBill by Republican Speaker Lucas and Republican Pro Tempore Pope on Point of Order – April 24, 2019

Pro-‘Abortion’ [ !!!??? ] SC Rep. Bamberg (D) offers Personhood Amendment to supplant (replace) all the language of H3020 ‘Heartbeat’ Bill with the language of H3920 Personhood Bill

Selectively Pro -‘ Abortion‘ SC Rep. Clary (R) raises Point of Order on Germaneness

_________________________________
_________________________________

Christians for Personhood:

Human Life begins at CONCEPTION NOT HEARTBEAT !!!

Note: The Republican-Super-Majority SC House passed H3020 Heartbeat Bill on Second Reading April 24 with the Mace rape and incest exceptionsAmendment.  The Republican Speaker Lucas and Republican Pro Tempore Pope ruled out of order the Amendment offered by Pro-“Abortion” [ !!!??? ] Rep. Bamberg (D) to adopt the Personhood Amendment with the exact verbatim language of the 2019 Personhood Bill H3920 in place of all the language of the Incremental Child-Murder Regulation HeartbeatBill which bans NO “abortions” before heartbeat detected.  H3020 was passed out of the SC House on Third Reading April 25, and the bill sent to SC Senate, where H3020 was assigned to Medical Affairs Committe April 25.

___________________________________
___________________________________

Excerpt from Transcript below:

Regarding proposed Bamberg Personhood Amendment to Heartbeat Bill [ which the Republican House Speaker and the Republican Speaker Pro Tempore rejected as non-germane, with no vote taken by the SC House on the Appeal that was made challenging the Speaker’s Ruling by Pro-Personhood Rep. Hill (R) ]:

Rep. Bamberg: 
I would, Mr. Speaker, I would definitely agree that the [Personhood] Amendment is broader-based, and I think affords more protections to the unborn fetuses.  It does not specifically speak to the “abortion” procedure, because I think the language as it’s written, would effectively abolish all “abortions”.  [emphasis, word “Personhood” added]

_________________________________
_________________________________

(Photo) ‘I AM A PERSON’ – 7 weeks from conception
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2018/03/13/photo-i-am-a-person-7-weeks-from-conception/

_____________________________
_____________________________

Read (or listen and view below) the words of Pro-“Abortion” Rep. Bamberg (D) as he basically challenges the Republican Super-majority SC House to change “Heartbeat” Bill H3020 completely into the language of Personhood Bill H3920 !!!???

SC House: Personhood Amendment Ruled Non-Germane to Incremental Child-Murder Regulation HeartbeatBill by Republican Speaker Lucas and Republican Pro Tempore Pope on Point of Order – April 24, 2019

( AUDIO ) Rep. Bamberg (D) Amendment No. 2 ( Personhood Bill ) to H3020 Heartbeat Bill
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Floor of SC House of Representatives, SC State House, Columbia, SC

[ Video available at SC Legislature Video Archives,
Wednesday, April 24, 2019  10:00 am
House of Representatives — House of Representatives – Part 2
   Begin at Video time 33:40 ]

___________________________

South Carolina LegislatureArchivesVideo Archives

Wednesday, April 24, 2019  10:00 am
House of Representatives — House of Representatives – Part 2
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php
Video – 2:59:07

[ BEGIN at Video time 33:40 ]

Speaker Lucas:  All right, we’re on Amendment 2.  Mr Bamberg is recognized on the Amendment.

Rep. Bamberg:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This particular amendment, we’ve had ongoing debate here today and throughout committee with regards to “abortions”, and a lot of this stems from the discussion about when life begins, when life doesn’t begin, the science behind it, and there’s discussion with regards to constitutionality, and Roe v. Wade, and when a woman’s right to choose arises, and is there a viability.
This particular bill seeks to cut that down and go off a six-week time in which some say fetal heartbeats can be detected.  What we are proposing in this particular amendment is to, in this State, end the discussion about when life begins, or what constitutes a [sic] unborn child, or what constitutes a fetus or embryo or a zygote.  And we’ve heard time and time again about how important of an issue this is, and that’s one reason why, ya know, those of us have spoken on this, and there have been some heated debates and heated discussions.  What this particular amendment does, effectively changes the bill that is before us, and some may refer to this as “personhood”.  And I want to take a second, and I want to go through this for those of you, there are some other abortion bills that have been filed in the House or in the Senate. There are bills that discuss when a woman has a right to choose and when she doesn’t.  And what this does, it puts, puts that to bed officially.  And what I’m asking this Body to do, is to stand by the political stances that are taken, stand by the religious stances that are taken, and officially, officially protect unborn children, or fetuses, whichever you want to refer to it as, at the moment of conception.  The moment of fertilization is something that everyone understands and everyone can agree with is that, we find ourselves in a position where scientifically speaking …

Speaker Lucas:  Judge [ Rep. ] Clary, for what purpose do you rise ?

Rep. Clary:  Point of Order.

Speaker:  State your point.

Rep. Clary:  Mr Speaker, under Rule 9.3, I do not believe that this amendment is germane. The original bill is talking about a medical procedure, and I don’t know that this is consistent with that bill.

Speaker Lucas:  Mr. Bamberg, I’ll let you respond.

Rep. Bamberg:  Mr. Speaker, if I may.  This, this Amendment is very germane.  I think it is short-sighted, with all due respect to Judge Clary, a good friend of mine.  The bill is not just talking about a procedure.  We are talking about at what point does life begin.  And what the bill seeks to do, is establish that point at the point that a fetal heartbeat can be detected. What the amendment speaks to, is the same thing, it just changes the point in time in which we’re going to consider a fetus alive for purposes of the State having a sufficient interest to say that a woman cannot have an abortion.  That’s all we’re doing.  So my response is that this is absolutely germane based on the language of the bill itself.

Speaker Lucas:  Mr. Bamberg, would you mind if I ask you a few questions ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Of course, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Lucas:  Thank you, thank you, Mr. Bamberg.  Representative Bamberg, I’ve, I’ve read the bill, and I’m unfortunately find myself having to rule on the Personhood Amendment.  And for all disclosure, I am, I am for “personhood”, but the point that Judge Clary raises is germaneness.  I’m reading the bill, and it appears that your Amendment, it appears as three pages of Whereas clauses, and the Whereas clauses, you would agree to me, would not be law, they’re just Whereas clauses, they wouldn’t, if we adopted this, they wouldn’t be included in the, in the Code.  We generally don’t do that, is that correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Mr. Speaker, I, that is, yes as I understand it, but I would note that, I believe the underlying bill itself, contains some form of Whereas …

Speaker Lucas:  Yeah, maybe a little different.

Rep. Bamberg:  Yes sir.

Speaker Lucas:  But the meat of this Amendment would be found on page four, Section 1-1-330 and Section 1-1-340.  That would be the meat of your Amendment, if you take out the Preamble, and the Whereases, and those types of things that lawyers generally deal with.  Is that correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Yes Mr. Speaker, primarily Section 1-1-330 and Section 1-1-340 is the specific law.

Speaker Lucas:  And in those Sections, 1-1-330(B) or 1-1-340, you don’t deal with the issue of “abortion” in those two Sections.  What that appears to be doing, and correct me if I’m wrong, is, is, it makes a legal finding about when certain constitutional rights attach.  Is that correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Mr. Speaker, it does not mention the word “abortion”, but, as it is written, it speaks to the right to life, which is the underlying premise for the fetal Heartbeat Bill, as I understand it, which is the State of South Carolina saying, at the point of a fetal heartbeat, that unborn fetus or child has a right to live, and this Amendment speaks to that.

Speaker Lucas:  It does speak to that, but, but it’s also broader than that.  Would you agree with that statement ?  Because it talks about when certain constitutional rights attach, and those constitutional rights, one of the constitutional rights, which you correctly mentioned was the right to life, the other constitutional rights, one that’s specified, is equal protection of the laws.  Is that correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Lucas:  So it is, it is, it is certainly broader than the bill we’re dealing with today, because whether you’re for or against the bill we’re dealing with today, it is a very long, complex bill dealing with a medical procedure.  Would you say my characterization of that is correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  I would, Mr. Speaker, I would definitely agree that the Amendment is broader-based, and I think affords more protections to the unborn fetuses.  It does not specifically speak to the “abortion” procedure, because I think the language as it’s written, would effectively abolish all “abortions”.  But yeah, it’s way broader, I would definitely agree with that, yes sir.

Speaker Lucas:  And then it’s actually in a, a, and I know this is not dispositive upon my ruling, it’s actually in Section 1 of the Code.  Your Amendment would affect Section 1 of the Code, where if this bill essentially deals with Section 44 of the Code, dealing with medical procedures.  Is that correct ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Yes, Mr. Speaker, that’s correct.

Speaker Lucas:  And in my deliberations of looking at Rule 9.3, provides that no amendment on a subject different than the one under consideration be permitted.  That’s what the Rule says.  That’s given rise to the “substantial effect” test which Speakers before me have utilized to judge whether amendments to bills under consideration are germane or not.  So, Mr. Bamberg, I’ll listen to, to additional arguments if you have them.
I’m going to take a second after listening to your answers, to look at the bill and look at the Amendment. And you can even consult with counsel if you desire.  You may want to get a better lawyer, but. ..
No, Mr. Stavrinakis is an outstanding lawyer, and I’d certainly respect him on that, but …
Mr. Bamberg, anything further that you wanted to tell me about this while, while I look at it, before I look at it?

Rep. Bamberg:  Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank you for giving me the time to kind of go through this. I’m glad that I don’t have to be cross-examined by you on the witness stand.  But I would just argue again this is, in my opinion, germane.  It is, it is broader than the underlying bill.  While the fetal heartbeat bill does speak to “abortions”, it also talks inherently about when life exists, when it begins, and when the State wants to protect that unborn interest.  And this Amendment speaks to the same thing, and would accomplish, accomplish that, but in a much simpler manner than the underlying bill.

Speaker Lucas:  It, it, it, it, it, I know you understand, I know you do a lot of legal work, certainly personal injury work. We’ve spoken to this issue, on the issue of civil claims, have we not ?

Rep. Bamberg:  Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Lucas:  And, and actually talked about when civil claims certainly attached based upon, on, on unborn child at what point that’s done, so this is, this is not new territory for us.  Let me, if you would Mr. Bamberg, let me take a look. Those are questions I had.  I’m going to, if the House will stand in recess just a moment.  I’ll take a look at the Amendment and the bill.  I obviously understand this is very important and we want to try to be correct on this. So thank you Mr. Bamberg, and thank you for answering my questions honestly, …

Rep. Bamberg:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Lucas:  … as I knew you would.

SC House of Representatives
IS STANDING AT EASE
[ Video time 45:38 to 46:22 – less than one minute transpires.  It appears the Speaker’s statement below was substantively prepared in advance. ]

Speaker Lucas:  Allright, House’ll, House’ll be in order.  I’ve had the opportunity to examine House Bill 3020 and its provisions, and I’ve also examined Amendment No. 2 as offered by Representative Bamberg. My job as the presiding officer is to determine whether the Amendment relates to the “same subject” or meets the “substantial effect” test as laid out in 9.3 and past House precedent.

The Bill before us, House Bill 3020, is a comprehensive health regulation scheme that governs the delivery of health care to a specific class of patients. The Bill requires identified health care providers to take very specific steps before they are permitted to perform certain procedures. The Bill also specifically prohibit the performance of “abortion” procedures in defined circumstances. The Bill defines the terms as it uses them and applies them within its complex framework.

So the Bill itself is a very specific bill.  The Amendment, however is, is a very general bill.  It does contain a set of legislative findings which would not become law, but the crux of the Amendment would be to declare fertilization as the point that rights would vest, all rights, right to life, due process, equal protection of the law, that those rights would vest upon conception.

And, and, Mr. Bamberg, I agree that it should be the law, but that’s not the issue before us, the issue before us is germaneness.  As I have reviewed the applicable precedent on the application of this Rule, it has been clear that one of the primary considerations by several Speakers before me, as we’ve looked through the precedents book, has been the scope of the underlying legislation.  By your testimony, not by your testimony, but by your very candid answers, you admitted to me, that this Bill is much, much broader than what we’re attempting to deal with today.  At least a dozen times, the Clerk informs me, three separate Speakers have ruled that any amendment that expands the original scope of legislation beyond the subject of the bill is non-germane.  While the issue of healthcare and “abortion” have not been specifically ruled on, distinctions have been made concerning subjects less inclusive [ Note: House Journal for April 24, 2019 says “exclusive” in transcription/paraphrase of Speaker’s remarks ] of one another than the grant of due process to an entire new class of citizens in South Carolina and a comprehensive healthcare regulation.

Therefore, I find Amendment No. 2 exceeds the scope of House Bill 3020 and I sustain Judge [ Rep. ] Clary’s Point of Order, and I find the Amendment out of order.  Clerk will read.

Rep. Hill:  Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Lucas:  Yes, Mr Hill.

Rep. Hill:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Pursuant to House Rule 1.5, I appeal that ruling.

Speaker Lucas:  Thank you, Mr Hill

[ House Journal for April 24, 2019:
“… the SPEAKER called the SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE to the Chair to act as Presiding Officer.” ]

Speaker Lucas vacates the Chair.
Speaker Pro Tem Pope in the Chair.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Ladies and Gentlemen, the Speaker’s ruling concerning germanenesss has been appealed under Rule 1.5.  Any member that wishes to be heard on this matter is, is welcome to come up and speak for no longer than 20 minutes.  Mr. Hill requests that he be heard on this matter.

Rep. Hill:  Thank you Mr. Speaker.  Thank you members.  My point in doing this here is simply, I want to call to your attention, I’m not going to call names here, but I recently heard one of my colleagues quip that germaneness is in the eye of the beholder.  That certainly does seem to be the case with how some rulings come down, sometimes they make sense, sometimes maybe they don’t.  In this case, this is, we’re dealing, we have before us the opportunity to vote on an Amendment, that while worded significantly differently, and inserted into a different point in statute, has the same substantial effect, I believe, of essentially banning all “abortions” in South Carolina.  This Amendment, a personhood approach, I believe does a more
thorough job of that.  And at the very least, I think it should be up to this Body whether, which direction we take on this policy.  And so, I want a chance to vote on it here on the House floor.  That’s, that’s why I made,  that’s why I appealed the ruling.  Thank you.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Mr. McCravy is recognized.

Rep. McCravy:  Thank you Mr. Speaker.  Just briefly, the ruling is correct in my opinion.  You have Title 44 that’s been amended and added to by the bill.  This bill has Section 1-1-330, a completely different part of the Code, because it talks about the rights of an individual, so it’s completely different. I agree, ultimately, with probably the ultimate conclusion of the Personhood Bill, and I’ve signed on to the Personhood Bill, but this, this would be improper to attach it to this bill, and make this bill a completely different bill.  So, I agree with the ruling on it.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Mr. King, Mr King, are you requesting to speak, sir?

Rep King:  Yes sir.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  OK, Mr. King is recognized to speak.  Mr. King.

Rep King:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  And, I would like to say, I would appreciate the opportunity to stand here and speak about this particular Amendment.  It is my understanding that we are here today to debate “abortions” in South Carolina.  The banning, or the beginning to identify, life.  And I’ve heard many colleagues today say that we want to protect life.  And we want to insure that once a lady or a woman is impregnated, that they go full term and have their child.  This gives us that opportunity.  To vote, to say that there is no “abortions’ to be done in South Carolina. So I want to be clear.  You voting against this Amendment, mean that you want to allow “abortions” to happen in South Carolina. You voting for this Amendment means that you want to ban “abortions” in South Carolina.  So I want to say, please understand how you’re voting.  And if this is what you …

Speaker Pro Tem Pope: Mr. King, I apologize, sir.  Mr. King, this is about the appeal as to the Speaker’s ruling. This is not about the Amendment.

Rep. King:  Thank you.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Allright, thank you.  Any further wish to speak on the appeal of the Speaker’s ruling ? Ladies and Gentlemen, Rule [1].5 allows for an appeal on the Speaker’s ruling.  My role as I see it before you is just two-fold.  One, I am to determine whether the Speaker in his judgment, ruling under Rule 9.3 abused his discretion. Second, and again the rules are not clear, so I’m going to hit this both ways; one, whether Speaker Lucas abused his discretion, number two, whether the underlying germaneness ruling was appropriate.  I find first, Mr. Hill, that he did not abuse his discretion.  I look also at the fact that he considered applicable precedent in the application of this rule, and that his ruling has a founding basis both in precedent, and in the law as presented before us.  Therefore, I find that he did not abuse his discretion.  Also that the, the ruling as to germaneness was appropriate, and that is my ruling.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Mr Hill is recognized.

Rep. Hill:  Thank you, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  It, this is a point of parliamentary inquiry, I guess you would say. It is my understanding that, under parliamentary procedure that appealing, or appealing the ruling of the Chair would result in a vote.  Can you clarify if that is indeed the process ?

Speaker Pro Tem Pope:  Under the Rules as I’ve seen them Mr. Hill, I have seen no indication it requires a vote.  I think it requires me to make a decision.  I’ve made that decision sir.  Thank you.

Speaker Pro Tem Pope vacates the Chair.
Speaker Lucas in the Chair.

Speaker Lucas:  We’re on Amendment No. 3.  Clerk’ll read.

[ END at Video time 57:28 ]

________________________
________________________

Republican-Super-Majority SC House adopted Mace rape and incest ‘exceptions’ amendment to incremental Child-Murder Regulation ‘ Heartbeat’ Bill which bans NO ‘abortions’ before heartbeat detected

Published by:

Columbia Christians for Life ( CCL )
aka Christians for Life and Liberty ( CLL )
Columbia, South Carolina
May 16, 2019 / Revised May 17, 2019

 

April 24 Columbia, SC

Republican-Super-Majority SC House adopted Mace rape and incest ‘exceptions’ amendment to incremental Child-Murder Regulation HeartbeatBill which bans NO ‘abortions’ before heartbeat detected

Human Life begins at CONCEPTION NOT HEARTBEAT !!!

Note: The Republican-Super-Majority SC House passed H3020 Heartbeat Bill on Second Reading April 24 with Mace rape and incest “exceptions” amendment, and on Third Reading April 25, and sent bill to SC Senate, where H3020 was assigned to Medical Affairs Committe April 25.
_____________________________________
_____________________________________


living unborn baby at eight weeks
http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-at-8-weeks-pictures/

________________________________
________________________________

“Republicans” who voted against tabling Mace rape and incest “exceptions” amendment to incremental Child-Murder Regulation HeartbeatBill, which already bans NO ‘abortions’ before heartbeat detected:

Bailey, Ballentine, Bannister, Blackwell, Bradley, Chellis, Clary, Clemmons, Cogswell, Collins, W. Cox, Daning, Davis, Felder, Finlay, Hewitt, Hixon, Huggins, Hyde, Kimmons, Lowe, Mace, Martin, McCoy, McGinnis, D. C. Moss, Murphy, B. Newton, W. Newton, Sottile, Spires, Taylor, Wooten  [ 33 “Republicans” total ]

Note: SC House Representatives districts and contact information.

After the attempt to table the Mace rape and incest “exceptions” amendment failed on a 38 – 62 vote, the Mace rape and incest “exceptions” amendment was then adopted on a voice vote.  So of the 62 votes against tabling the Mace rape and incest “exceptions” amendment, 33 of those 62 were the “Republicans” listed above.  In other words, the
Mace rape and incest “exceptions” amendment would have failed without the support of Republicans.

______________________________
______________________________

Mace rape and incest ‘exceptions’ amendment added to unjust incremental Child-Murder Regulation HeartbeatBill; unjust Mace amendment insures children conceived in cases of rape and incest can still be murdered even after heartbeat detected:

Note 1: In addition to being fundamentally flawed as an incremental bill regulating child-murder by allowing the murder of all children in the womb prior to a heartbeat being detected (approx. 6 weeks gestation), the ‘ HeartbeatBill ( H3020) as initially filed also already contained “exceptions” for performing an “abortion” (which this bill euphemistically includes among what it terms “a medical procedure” [ sic – intentional murder of a child in the womb is not “a medical procedure” !!! ] “to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” [ Re: H3020 as pre-filed Dec 18, 2018 – Section 44-41-700. (A) and Section 44-41-710. (A) ]

However, it is never necessary to intentionally destroy the child in the womb.  See written Statement below prepared by Dr. Patrick Johnston, presented to a SC Senate Judiciary Subcommittee by Dr. Henry Jordan, on March 13, 2014:

Dr. Patrick Johnston, Director, Assn. of Pro-Life Physicians, Statement S.457 Senate Judiciary Subcomm. Hearing
March 13, 2014

Note 2:  The Mace amendment adding rape and incest exceptions to the ‘ HeartbeatBill ( H3020) was approved by the full SC House Judiciary Committee [ April 4, 2019 Report ], and later adopted by the full SC House on April 24:

SC House Journal – April 24, 2019
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess123_2019-2020/hj19/20190424.htm#p61
Excerpts [ edited, emphasis added ]

The Committee on Judiciary proposed the following Amendment No. 1 to H. 3020 ( Word version)
(COUNCIL\VR\3020C001.CC.VR19):
Amend the bill, as and if amended, SECTION 2, by striking Section 44-41-680 in its entirety and inserting:

/   Section 44-41-680.   (A)   Section 44-41-670 does not apply to a physician who performs or induces the abortion if the physician determines according to standard medical practice that a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with that section or that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

(B)   A physician who performs or induces an abortion on a pregnant woman based on an exception in subsection (A) shall make written notations in the pregnant woman’s medical records of the following:

(1)(a)   the physician’s belief that a medical emergency necessitating the abortion existed; and

(b)   the medical condition of the pregnant woman that assertedly prevented compliance with Section 44-41-670; or

(2)   the physician’s belief that the pregnancy resulted from rape of [ sic – or ] incest.

(C)   For at least seven years from the date the notations are made, the physician shall maintain in the physician’s own records a copy of the notations.   / amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, by striking Section 44-41-710 in its entirety and inserting:

/   Section 44-41-710.   (A)   Section 44-41-700 does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure that, in reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman or is designed or intended to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest.

(B)(1)   A physician who performs a medical procedure as described in subsection (A) shall declare, in a written document, that the medical procedure is necessary, in reasonable medical judgment, to:

(a)   prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman; or

(b)   terminate a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest.

(2)   In the document, the physician shall:

(a)   specify the pregnant woman’s medical condition that the medical procedure is asserted to address and the medical rationale for the physician’s conclusion that the medical procedure is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman; or

(b)   specify the medical rational for the physician’s conclusion that the medical procedure is necessary to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest.

(C)   A physician who performs a medical procedure as described in subsection (A) shall place the written document required by subsection (B) in the pregnant woman’s medical records. For at least seven years from the date the document is created, the physician shall maintain a copy of the document in the physician’s own records.   /

Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. MACE explained the amendment.

Rep. MCCRAVY spoke against the amendment.
Rep. RIDGEWAY spoke against the amendment.

continued…

Rep. RIDGEWAY continued speaking.

Rep. MAGNUSON spoke against the amendment.
Rep. KING spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. KING spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. RUTHERFORD spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. RUTHERFORD spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. RIDGEWAY spoke against the amendment.
Rep. MACE spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. LONG spoke against the amendment.
Rep. MACK spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. THIGPEN spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. THIGPEN spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. R. WILLIAMS spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. R. WILLIAMS spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. CLEMMONS spoke in favor of the amendment.

continued…

Rep. MCCRAVY moved to table the amendment.

Rep. MACE demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Yeas 38; Nays 62

Those who voted in the affirmative (38) are:
[ voting AGAINST ADDING MACE RAPE AND INCEST EXCEPTIONS AMENDMENT ]

Alexander, Allison, Bales, Bennett, Burns, Calhoon, Chumley, B. Cox, Crawford, Elliott, Forrest, Forrester, Gagnon, Gilliam, Hardee, Hayes, Hill, Hiott, Johnson, Long, Lucas, Magnuson, McCravy, Morgan, V. S. Moss, Pope, Ridgeway, Sandifer, Simrill, G. R. Smith, Stringer, Tallon, Thayer, Trantham, West, Whitmire, Willis, Yow

Total–38

Those who voted in the negative (62) are:
[ voting IN FAVOR OF ADDING MACE RAPE AND INCEST EXCEPTIONS AMENDMENT ]

Anderson, Atkinson, Bailey, Ballentine, Bamberg, Bannister, Blackwell, Bradley, Brawley, Chellis, Clary, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cogswell, Collins, W. Cox, Daning, Davis, Felder, Finlay, Garvin, Gilliard, Govan, Henderson-Myers, Henegan, Hewitt, Hixon, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Hyde, Jefferson, Kimmons, King, Kirby, Lowe, Mace, Martin, McCoy, McDaniel, McGinnis, Moore, D. C. Moss, Murphy, B. Newton, W. Newton, Norrell, Ott, Parks, Pendarvis, Rivers, Robinson, Rutherford, Simmons, Sottile, Spires, Stavrinakis, Taylor, R. Williams, S. Williams, Wooten

Total–62

So, the House refused to table the amendment.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

____________________
____________________

Additional reports:

PERSONHOOD ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AND SCRIPTURAL BASIS OF HUMAN LAWS
Christians for Personhood newsletter
Steve Lefemine, Christian pro-life missionary
exec. dir., Christians for Personhood
December 31, 2018

ALL Heartbeat bills have a huge “EXCEPTION”
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2019/04/08/all-heartbeat-bills-have-a-huge-exception/
April 5, 2019

Personhood Report: In Law, No Exceptions to Human Personhood
November 30, 2018 / Edited December 4, 2018

Personhood Report: No Exceptions to Personhood
January 27, 2018

No Exceptions
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/no-exceptions/

Pro-Life Without Exception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=zwazODlTOBk
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 circumstance.

Dr. Patrick Johnston, Director, Assn. of Pro-Life Physicians, Statement S.457 Senate Judiciary Subcomm. Hearing
March 13, 2014

ALL Heartbeat bills have a huge “EXCEPTION”

Published by:

Christians for Personhood (CP)
April 5, 2019

In NY Times article below, Georgia RTL supported Georgia’s recently passed incremental child-murder regulation Heartbeat Bill, until rape and incest exceptions were added. For heaven’s sake, by definition, ALL Heartbeat bills have a huge “EXCEPTION” – i.e., allowing the killing of ALL children in the womb who are less than six weeks old !!! Heartbeat bills do NOT “establish Justice” as required by the Preamble of the US Constitution (and therefore inherent in Oath of Office taken by legislators and governors); are contrary to Scripture; and are contrary to a principled, Biblically-sound position of supporting only Personhood, or other legislation which completely abolishes child-murder by “abortion”.

‘Georgia Is Latest State to Pass Fetal Heartbeat Bill as Part of Growing Trend’

The New York Times
March 30, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/georgia-fetal-heartbeat-abortion-law.html

Christians for Personhood comments (cont’d):

Georgia RTL is essentially founding affiliate of so-called “Personhood” Alliance:

National Personhood Alliance | Georgia Right to Life
http://www.grtl.org/?q=national-personhood-alliance

However there are leaders within the Romish/ecumenical “Personhood” Alliance who do NOT only support principled, Biblically-sound Personhood legislation.

In fact, a leading voice advocating passage of the Ohio incremental child-murder regulation Heartbeat bill is a president emeritus of the (so-called) Personhood Alliance: Molly Smith, president of the Ohio affiliate of the “Personhood” (sic) Alliance, called Cleveland Right to Life.

Leadership – Personhood Alliance
https://personhood.org/about-us/leadership

The “Personhood” Alliance leaders are NOT all ONLY supporting principled, Biblically-sound Personhood legislation. That is NOT a position faithful to the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Exodus 20:13
Matthew 19:18
Amos 5:15
Exodus 10:24-26
KJV

Christians for Personhood (CP)
ChristiansforPersonhood.com

‘For the Murdered Unborn, Incrementalism is Not Justice’

Published by:

Incrementalism is Not Justice for the Murdered Unborn.  Incrementalism Perverts Justice and the Law.

Incrementalism is the Regulation of Child-Murder-by-“Abortion”.  Incrementalism is Evil.

In the Sixth Commandment, God says, “Thou shalt not kill (murder).” Exodus 20:13, KJV.  Jesus Christ says, “If ye love Me, keep My commandments.” John 14:15.  Establishing Justice is obedience to God.

“[God] hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” Micah 6:8, KJV.  The LORD requires of man to DO Justice,

Doing Justice is something that is “good” in the eyes of God.  For the Murdered Unborn, Incrementalism is Not Justice.

Therefore, in the eyes of God, Incrementalism is not “Good”.  Incrementalism is Evil.

God says, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20, KJV.

“Justice and judgment are the habitation [foundation] of Thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before Thy face.” Psalm 89:14.  “… [R]ighteousness and judgment are the habitation of His throne.” Psalm 97:2  “Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: …” Amos 5:15 (Zechariah 8:16), KJV.  “To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.” Proverb 21:3, KJV.  “… [T]hey shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; …” Genesis 18:19, KJV.

For a period of 100 years or so, Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) were used to train lawyers in America, beginning in the immediate pre-Revolutionary War Period, and lasting at least until the latter 1800’s, as was the case with the University of South Carolina Law School in Columbia (opened 1867).

In Blackstone’s Introduction, Section 2, “Of the Nature of Laws in General”  [ search http://lonang.com ], he wrote:

“Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws;  that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”

Earlier on the same page Blackstone explained the source of “revealed or divine law” [ “the law of revelation” ]:

“The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures.”  [ That is, the Bible, the Word of God. ]
This is the original foundation of the American legal system, based upon God’s Laws of Nature [ Note: not the same as so-called “natural law” ], and God’s Revealed Law.  In other words, “all human laws” are to be consistent with the Word of God, the Bible !!!  Blackstone continued, using the specific example of murder, stating, “Nay, if any human law should allow or injoin us to commit it [ i.e., murder ], we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine.”  Does not Incremental legislation such as the abominable 20-week, so-called “Pain Capable” legislation passed in S.C. in 2016 “allow” THE MURDER OF ALL CHILDREN UNDER 20 WEEKS !?

Does not this year’s Incremental legislation, the evil so-called “Dismemberment” bill, “allow” THE MURDER OF ALL CHILDREN BY SUCTION AND RU-486 AND OTHER CHEMICAL ABORTIFACIENTS !?  These bills, using the words of Sir William Blackstone, “offend both the natural and the divine.”  They are an offense to God.  Explicitly or implicitly, these evil bills call “Good” what God and wise Christian men of an earlier generation such as Blackstone, call “Evil”.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; …” Isaiah 5:20, KJV.

From 1973 to 2015, over 382,000 children are reported by DHEC to have been destroyed in their mother’s wombs in South Carolina.  The Incrementalists like to point out, look how many babies have been saved while numerous incremental bills have passed over the years ( over nearing the last 30 years ).  They point to the over 50% decrease in reported “abortions” in SC since the number peaked at over 14,000 in 1988.  However is the goal to “save babies”, or is the divinely established goal (Amos 5:15, KJV) to actually Establish Justice and END “child-murder-by-“abortion”?

From 1989 to 2015, nearing one-quarter Million children (over 224,000) have been murdered on South Carolina soil.

Even the United States Constitution’s Preamble identifies that document’s second purpose, is to “establish Justice”.

So we can continue to “save babies”, some through incremental legislation, and some by pregnancy care centers, and some by sidewalk counselling, and some by numerous other means, but the cup of wrath of the judgment of God continues to fill as the innocent bloodshed continues, and those with eyes to see know we are already experiencing God’s ongoing warnings of remedial judgments in S.C. and America (e.g., 9-11-2001, Great Recession, 2015 Flood). Who knows when national calamity may come in the form of another national bloodbath, whether by our own hands, as was experienced 1861-1865 for the national sin of un-Biblical American Slavery (which cost at least over 600,000 American lives, North and South), or by foreign invaders (e,g., China, Russia, Iran, Islamic terrorists ?), or both ?

Slavery Abolitionist, editor, William Lloyd Garrison asked rhetorically, “… Has not the experience of two centuries shown that gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice?”  The 1860 Republican Party Platform protected Slavery in the Slave States, while opposing expansion of Slavery in the western Territories.  We know now such “gradualism” was insufficient to stay God’s Hand of Judgment upon America as He gave that “terrible war” “to both North and South” (President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865).  Applying Garrison’s admonition against gradualism to today’s national sin of child-murder, “Has not the experience of over 44 years shown that incrementalism in theory is the perpetuation of child-murder in practice?”  Incrementalism is perpetuating “abortion”.  It is well past time to END it.

Jesus says, “THOU SHALT DO NO MURDER” ( Matthew 19:18, KJV ).  Establish Justice Now !!!

The Lord Jesus Christ is “the King of kings, and Lord of lords”, now !  ( 1 Timothy 6:15, KJV ),

 

Steve Lefemine, Christian pro-life missionary

dir., Columbia Christians for Life aka Christians for Life and Liberty

exec. dir., Christians for Personhood

PO Box 12222, Columbia, South Carolina 29211

 

http://ChristianLifeandLiberty.net

http://ChristiansforPersonhood.com

www.RighttoLifeactofSC.net

 

[ Note: This letter / op-ed is posted on the “Personhood Act” page of the http://ChristianLifeandLiberty.net website (# 138) ]

Source: http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2017-04-10-Incrementalism-is-Not-Justice-Incrementalism-is-Evil.pdf