Category Archives: Interposition

ROE v. WADE Opinion, January 22, 1973: “If … personhood is established, the [pro-“abortion”] case, of course, collapses, …”

Published by:

ROE v. WADE Opinion, January 22, 1973:

“If … personhood is established, the [pro-“abortion”] case, of course, collapses, …”

ROE v. WADE Opinion: “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157]  for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”

____________________________________________
____________________________________________

United States Supreme Court
ROE v. WADE (1973)
No. 70-18

Argued: December 13, 1971

Reargued: October 11, 1972

Decided: January 22, 1973
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

Appellee (Pro-Life): Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County, State of Texas

Appellant (Pro-“Abortion”): Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey*)

[ * Norma McCorvey later became a born-again Christian and a leading voice for the sanctity of life of the unborn, and against “abortion” ]

 

ROE v. WADE Opinion:

Part IX

A. The appellee [ Texas ] 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 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 [ Jane Roe ] conceded as much on reargument. [FN 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [FN 52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  [ emphasis added; identification of parties to the case in brackets added ]

__________________________________________________

PERSONHOOD is the KEY to ENDING/ABOLISHING Child-Murder by “Abortion” in America

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart during the Second Oral Argument of Roe v. Wade, on October 11, 1972:

“And the basic constitutional question initially is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it ?”

continued…

“It’s critical to this case, is it not ?”

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

Audio / ROE v. WADE
FULL SECOND ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE US SUPREME COURT
– October 11, 1972
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/11/18/audio-roe-v-wade-full-second-oral-argument-before-us-supreme-court-october-11-1972/

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:

“And the basic constitutional question initially is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it ?”

Texas Asst Attorney General Robert Flowers:

“Yes, and entirely to the constitutional perspective.”

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:

“It’s critical to this case, is it not ?”

Texas Asst Attorney General Robert Flowers:

“Yes, sir, it is, …”

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina Constitutional Law:’
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/11/05/personhood-and-south-carolina-constitutional-law/

“… nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

Constitution of the State of South Carolina, Article I, Section 3.

[ emphasis added ]
_________________

South Carolina Constitution
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 3. Privileges and immunities; due process; equal protection of laws.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of this State and of the United States under this Constitution shall not be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/A01.pdf

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina State Law:’
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/11/02/personhood-and-south-carolina-state-law

“Murder” is the killing of any person

[ emphasis added ]
___________________________

South Carolina Code of Laws
Title 16 – Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 3 – Offenses Against the Person
ARTICLE I – Homicide

SECTION 16-3-10. “Murder” defined.

“Murder” is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

The word “person” is a legal term of art:

Black’s Law Dictionary (2009): Person = “A Human Being”

__________________________________________________

PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE AND END CHILD-MURDER BY “ABORTION” IN SOUTH CAROLINA WAS FIRST FILED IN THE SC LEGISLATURE NEARLY 24 YEARS AGO IN 1998, AND HAS BEEN ACTIVE EVERY YEAR SINCE:

[ Report ]
2021-2022 SC Personhood Bills, H.3568 and S.381
23 Years of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina
April 26, 2021

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998 – 2021)
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/11/10/history-of-personhood-legislation-in-south-carolina-1998-2021/

PERSONHOOD is the KEY to ENDING/ABOLISHING Child-Murder by “Abortion” in South Carolina

__________________________________________________

Ignore Roe !

Interpose !
( LesserMagistrate.com )

Establish Justice, Now !

END/ABOLISH Child-Murder by “Abortion” Now !

PASS PERSONHOOD NOW !

“Personhood Act of South Carolina”
( 2021-2022 Session of SC Legislature )

S.381
H.3568
(scstatehouse.gov)

 

God says,

“Thou shalt not kill (murder).”

Exodus 20:13, KJV

 

ChristiansforPersonhood.com

 

Non-tax-deductible contributions may be sent to:

Christians for Personhood
PO Box 12222
Columbia, SC 29211

CP@spiritcom.net

‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina Constitutional Law:’

Published by:

PERSONHOOD and South Carolina Constitutional Law:

“… nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

Constitution of the State of South Carolina, Article I, Section 3.
__________________________________________________

South Carolina Constitution
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 3. Privileges and immunities; due process; equal protection of laws.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of this State and of the United States under this Constitution shall not be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/A01.pdf
 __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
   

The language of the SC Constitution, Article I Declaration of Rights, Section 3, pertaining to the right to life is incorporated in both the SC Senate and SC House Personhood Act of South Carolina Bills:

 

From the text of S.381, “Personhood Act of South Carolina”, introduced January 12, 2021 in the SC Senate:

Section 1-1-320.    (A)    The right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization.

    (B)    The rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of this State, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law nor denied the equal protection of the laws, vest at fertilization for each born and preborn human being.  [ emphasis added ]
__________________________________________________

 

From the text of H.3568, “Personhood Act of South Carolina”, introduced January 12, 2021 in the SC Senate:

Section 1-1-330.    (A)    The right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization.

    (B)    The rights guaranteed by Section 3, Article I, of the Constitution of this State, that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law nor denied the equal protection of the laws, vest at fertilization for each born and preborn human being.              [ emphasis added ]
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

History: Based upon the recommendation of constitutional attorney, scholar, author, and former Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University (Virginia Beach, VA) Herb Titus, J.D., the original design of personhood legislation in South Carolina, as first introduced in February 1998 in both the SC House and the SC Senate, was based upon the South Carolina State Constitution for its authority, not the United States Constitution. This legal strategy and structure, based upon the South Carolina State Constitution, has been the case for each and all of the 23 consecutive years of Personhood legislation that has been active in the South Carolina Legislature, 1998 through 2021:

[ Report ]
2021-2022 SC Personhood Bills, H.3568 and S.381
23 Years of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina
April 26, 2021

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998-2020)
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2021-04-11-History-of-Personhood-Legislation-in-South-Carolina-1998-2020.pdf


This important point was emphasized in the written testimony of Herb Titus at the very first public hearing for Personhood legislation in the SC Legislature on April 25, 2001. Herb Titus also testified live by telephone before the SC House Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommitttee, consisting of Representatives (Ch.) Chip Campsen (R), Jim Harrison (R), Jay Lucas (R), Creighton Coleman (D), and Fletcher Smith (D). After several members of the public also testified, the Subcommittee then failed to report H.3252 to the full SC House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 4 to 1 against H.3252.  All three “Republicans” and Creighton Coleman voted against H.3252; only Democrat Fletcher Smith voted favorably. the first Legislator in South Carolina to vote in support of Personhood legislation.

Written Statement of Herb Titus on 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 testified before the Constitutional Laws Subcommittee by telephone, in addition to submitting this written statement.)

Attorney, former College of Law and Government Dean, Herb Titus (Excerpts from Written Statement, April 25, 2001):

“I am appearing this day before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives for the State of South Carolina to testify in favor of the constitutionality of H.3252, the “Right to Life Act of South Carolina.”  [ 2001-2002 SC Personhood Bill ]

“H.3252, if enacted, would enable the South Carolina legislature to overcome the barriers to preventing full protection of the lives of preborn human beings. In Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court based its holding that a woman had a right to an abortion upon its ruling that an unborn child was only “potential life,” not a fully-human life, and therefore, was not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. In contrast to this narrow interpretation of the meaning of “person” in the federal constitution, H.3252 recognizes that Article I, Section 3 of the [ South Carolina ] state constitution contains a more expansive definition, vesting the due process guarantee of life, liberty and property, and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws, to every human person “at fertilization.”

“If the right to life and to equal protection vest at fertilization, then a woman’s constitutional right [sic] to terminate her pregnancy, that would otherwise be                        [ erroneously ] recognized by the United States Supreme Court under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, disappears.”

“At the heart of the equal protection of the laws is the prohibition against denial of rights to a class of human beings, refusing to recognize them as legal persons before the law. … for South Carolina to afford the benefit of its homicide laws to one class of human beings, to the exclusion of another class, would be a denial of equal protection of the laws. Yet, that is precisely the result when the state does not extend the benefit of its homicide laws to human beings not yet delivered from the womb of their mothers, as contrasted to those who are so delivered.”

“H.3252 rectifies this denial of equal protection, by recognizing that the constitutional protections afforded persons in Article I, Section 3 [ of the South Carolina State Constitution ] must include human beings from the moment of fertilization. Otherwise, the State Constitution fails to fulfill its primary purpose, to preserve and perpetuate the liberties that God has given to all human beings, regardless of their status.”

“In conclusion, H.3252 is constitutional, not in conflict with Roe v. Wade, because it is based upon an independent and adequate state constitutional ground which grants a more expansive right to life than the one afforded by the federal constitution as [ erroneously ] interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.”
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________

Beginning with the 2013-2014 SC Legislative Session, the SC Personhood Bills in the SC House and SC Senate were revised to include, in addition to various legislative findings in the Preamble, the addition of an explicit reference to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as follows:

2013-2014 SC Personhood Bill, S.457
Section 1-1-340.
“This article is enacted pursuant to the power reserved to this State under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

2013-2014 SC Personhood Bill, H.3584
Section 1-1-340.
“This article is enacted pursuant to the power reserved to this State under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

On March 13, 2014 and on April 14, 2014, public hearings on SC Personhood Bill, S.457 were conducted before a Subcommittee of the SC Senate Judiciary Committee, consisting of Senators (Ch.) Chip Campsen (R), Greg Gregory (R), Greg Hembree (G), Brad Hutto (D), and Karl Allen (D). At the end of the two Subcommittee hearings, Chairman Senator Chip Campsen’s Subcommittee failed to even vote on the bill !

During the March 13, 2014 Hearing, COL (Dr.) John Eidsmoe, Senior Counsel for the Foundation of Moral Law [ morallaw.org ]
( associated with twice-former Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore ) testified telephonically to the Subcommittee in support of S.457.

COL (Dr.) John Eidsmoe, Senior Counsel, Foundation for Moral Law, Written Statement S.457 Senate Judiciary Subcomm. Hearing
March 13, 2014

COL (Dr.) John Eidsmoe, Senior Counsel, Foundation for Moral Law
Professional Experience, Professional License, Education

Attorney, Senior Counsel COL (Dr.) John Eidsmoe (Excerpts from Written Statement):

“As Senior Counsel and Resident Scholar for the Foundation for Moral Law, and as one who has taught Constitutional Law I & II at various law schools for over twenty years, I have examined South Carolina S.457, believe it to be constitutional, and urge its passage.”

“Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution specifically define when personhood begins.  The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),  did not address when human life begins, but it did say the term “person” within the Fourteenth Amendment refers to persons already born.  I do not believe this precludes the State of South Carolina from defining personhood as beginning at conception, …”

“I understand that some South Carolina legislators are concerned about challenging Roe v. Wade because the U.S. Constitution, Article VI Sec. 2, declares the U.S. Constitution to be the “supreme Law of the Land.” True, but this means not just part of the Constitution but all of the Constitution. And because Article V declares that amendments when ratified “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,” the Tenth Amendment is part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” The Tenth Amendment provides that “The powers not delegated to the United [States] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Wherever the Constitution delegates powers to the federal government, that is the supreme law of the land.  But wherever the Constitution reserves powers to the states, that is equally the supreme law of the landI would argue that the Constitution nowhere delegates to the federal government the power to determine when personhood begins.  Therefore, the power to determine when personhood begins is by the Tenth Amendment reserved to the states, and that is the supreme law of the land.”
[ emphasis added ]

“S.457 is well-drafted and a very good place to make this defense.  I hope and pray that South Carolina will lead the way by enacting S. 457, and if it is challenged in court the Foundation for Moral Law will be pleased to assist South Carolina in the defense of the law and the defense of the unborn child.”
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE AND END CHILD-MURDER BY “ABORTION” IN SOUTH CAROLINA WAS FIRST FILED IN THE SC LEGISLATURE 23 YEARS AGO IN 1998, AND HAS BEEN ACTIVE EVERY YEAR SINCE:

[ Report ]
2021-2022 SC Personhood Bills, H.3568 and S.381
23 Years of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina
April 26, 2021

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998-2020)
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2021-04-11-History-of-Personhood-Legislation-in-South-Carolina-1998-2020.pdf

PERSONHOOD is the KEY to ENDING Child-Murder by “Abortion” in South Carolina.
 
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________

Ignore Roe !

Interpose !
( LesserMagistrate.com )

Establish Justice, Now !

END Child-Murder by “Abortion” Now !

PASS PERSONHOOD NOW !

“Personhood Act of South Carolina”
( 2021-2022 Session of SC Legislature )

S.381
H.3568
(scstatehouse.gov)

 

God says,

“Thou shalt not kill (murder).”

Exodus 20:13, KJV

ChristiansforPersonhood.com

________________________________________
________________________________________

‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina State Law:’

Christians for Personhood
Nov 2, 2021
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/11/02/personhood-and-south-carolina-state-law

_______________________________________

Videos / PERSONHOOD IS THE KEY TO ENDING “ABORTION” IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’

Christians for Personhood
Oct 25, 2021
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/10/25/videos-personhood-is-the-key-to-ending-abortion-in-the-united-states-of-america

_______________________________________

“Good” is the Enemy of God’s Best: Personhood vs Incrementalism

Christians for Personhood
Oct 10, 2021
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/10/10/good-is-the-enemy-of-gods-best-personhood-vs-incrementalism

______________________________________

‘The Texas Heartbeat child-murder by “abortion” regulation and therefore perpetuation law, is unjust; it does not establish justice, as the LORD requires of Man’

Christians for Personhood
Sept 6, 2021
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/09/06/the-texas-heartbeat-child-murder-by-abortion-regulation-and-therefore-perpetuation-law-is-unjust-it-does-not-establish-justice-as-the-lord-requires-of-man-2

_________________________________
_________________________________

“Personhood” is the key to ENDING “abortion” in the United States of America

Published by:

“Personhood” is the key to ENDING “abortion” in the United States of America

“Personhood” recognizes the Creator God-given, unalienable right to life of every human being as a natural person, beginning at fertilization, in statutory and/or constitutional law.
__
__

[Audio] Excerpts from the Second Oral Argument, October 11, 1972, of the Roe v Wade case (Opinion: January 22, 1973), before the US Supreme Court

Watch:
“Roe v. Wade”
https://youtu.be/81NrWq3p5Ag
__
__

A human being is a natural person.
__

Black’s Law Dictionary (2009):
Person = “A Human Being”

“person. … 1. A human being.
– Also termed natural person.”
__

Black’s Law Dictionary
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2013-12-09-Blacks-Law-Dictionary-Person-1.pdf

Copyright 2009
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2013-12-09-Blacks-Law-Dictionary-Person-2.pdf

Person – “A human being.”
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2013-12-09-Blacks-Law-Dictionary-Person-3.pdf
__
__

‘PERSONHOOD IS ABOLITION’
March 15, 2017
Revised
June 28, 2021
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/06/27/personhood-is-abolition-2
__
__

God says,

“Thou shalt not kill (murder).”

Exodus 20:13, KJV

 

Christians for Personhood

“Judgment At Nuremberg” ….. (1961 movie)

Published by:

Corrected/Revised July 12, 2021

 

“Judgment At Nuremberg” (1961 movie)

Chief Trial Judge:
“Before the people of the world, let it now be noted, that here in our decision,
this is what we stand for:  Justice. Truth.  And the value of a single human being.”
____________________________________________
 “Judgment At Nuremberg” (1961 movie)
https://m.ok.ru/video/825191434915

[ Warning: Outside of the four video segments cited below, there is occasional profanity in the movie. ]

Fictionalized dramatization of “the Judges’ Trial of 1947, one of the 12 U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunals conducted before the U.S. military.”

“Judgment at Nuremberg” (1961 movie)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_at_Nuremberg

Watch:

1) Actual historical films from Nazi concentration camps: Buchenwald, Dachau, Belsen
[ Video time: 1:43:20 – 1:51:30 ]
___________________________________________________

2) Self-incriminating confession and testimony of defendant, prominent German jurist, Ernst Janning [Burt Lancaster]
[ Video time: 2:17:25 – 2:26:40 ]

Excerpts [emphasis added]:

“My counsel would have you believe we were not aware of the concentration camps, not aware. Where were we ?  Where were we when Hitler began shrieking his hate in the Reichstag [ Parliament ] ?  Where were we when our neighbors were being dragged out in the middle of the night to Dachau ? Where were we when every village in Germany has a railroad terminal, where cattle cars were filled with children being carried off to their extermination ?”

“Where were we when they cried out in the night to us ?                                                                           Were we DEAF, DUMB, BLIND ?!!! …”

[ AMERICA IN 2021: WHERE ARE WE IN AMERICA TODAY WHEN OUR UNBORN NEIGHBORS ARE BEING TORN TO PIECES IN THE CHILD-MURDER BY “ABORTION” EXTERMINATION CENTERS IN EVERY ONE OF OUR 50 STATES ? ARE WE “AWARE” ?  DO WE KNOW WHERE THE CHILD-EXTERMINATION CENTERS ARE IN OUR  OWN STATE ?  DO WE EVEN KNOW HOW MANY THERE ARE ? ]

“My counsel says we were not aware of the extermination of the millions. He would give you the excuse we were only aware of the extermination of the hundreds. Does that make us any the less guilty ? Maybe we didn’t know the details. But if we didn’t know, it was because we didn’t want to know. … I am going to tell them the truth. I am going to tell them the truth, if the whole world conspires against it. I am going to tell them the truth about their [ German/Nazi ] Ministry of Justice … and Ernst Janning [ speaking of himself ], worse than any of them, because he knew what they [ the other defendants ] were, and he went along with them. Ernst Janning made his life excrement, because he walked with them.”

[ AMERICA in 2021: 62+ MILLION REPORTED DEAD; actually many, many, many more counting deaths from chemically abortifacient (Item #191) so-called “birth control”; SOUTH CAROLINA in 2021: 402,000+ REPORTED DEAD (1973-2019); actually many, many, many more counting deaths from chemically abortifacient (Item #191) so-called “birth control”. ]
___________________________________________________

3) Closing Argument for the Defense by German defense counsel, Hans Rolfe [Maximilian Schell]
[ Video time: 2:26:40 to 2:30:38 ]
German defense attorney pointed out guilt of world parties enabling Hitler including: Soviet Union (1939 Pact), Vatican (1933 Concordat), Winston Churchill (1938 open published letter in London Times praising Hitler), American industrialists (who profited from rebuilding Hitler’s armaments).

Excerpts:

“What about the rest of the world? Did it not know the intentions of the Third Reich? Did it not hear the words of Hitler’s broadcast all over the world? Did it not read his intentions in Mein Kampf, published in every corner of the world? … Where’s the responsibility of the Vatican, who signed in 1933 the Concordat with Hitler, giving him his first tremendous prestige? Are we not to find the Vatican guilty? … [Where’s] the responsibility of those American industrialists, who helped Hitler to rebuild his armaments and profited by that rebuilding?!! Are we not to find the American industrialists guilty?”

American Rhetoric: Movie Speech from Judgment at Nuremberg
– Hans Rolfe Delivers Closing Argument
https://americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechjudgmentatnuremberg2.html
__________________________________________________

4) Pre-verdict and sentencing statement of Chief Trial Judge Dan Haywood [Spencer Tracy]
[ Video time: 2:42:45 – 2:49:20 ]

Excerpts [emphasis added]:

“Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen of the charges in this indictment.”

“Rather the charge is that of conscious participation in a nationwide, government-organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilized nations.

“The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom is Civilization. But the tribunal does say that the men in the dock [ defendants ] are responsible for their actions.”

“Men who sat in black robes in judgment on other men. Men who took part in the enactment of laws, and decrees, the purpose of which was the extermination of human beings. Men who in executive positions, actively participated in the enforcement of these laws, illegal even under German law.”

[ DOES THIS NOT SOUND, FIRST, LIKE MOST UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FROM JANUARY 22, 1973 TO THE PRESENT TIME IN 2021, WHO HAVE ISSUED OR UPHELD, ROE v. WADE, PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY, AND/OR THEIR UNJUST PROGENY ?  IT IS ALSO EFFECTIVELY THE CASE WITH EVERY OTHER JUDGE, LEGISLATOR, EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIAL, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL WHO “ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE[S] IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE” UNJUST US SUPREME COURT OPINIONS SUCH AS ROE v. WADE, WHICH ARE NOT EVEN LAWS !!! ]

“The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common: Any person who sways another to commit murder; Any person who furnishes a lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime; Any person who is an accessory to the crime; is guilty.” 

“… this trial has shown that under a national crisis, ordinary, even able and extraordinary men can delude themselves into the commission of crimes so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination. No one who has sat through the trial can ever forget them: Men sterilized because of political [  ]. … The murder of children.”

[ A country is ] “what it stands for. It’s what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult.”

Before the people of the world, let it now be noted, that here in our decision,
this is what we stand for:  Justice. Truth.  And the value of a single human being
.”

___________________________________________
___________________________________________

AND WHAT OF THE ONGOING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY IN 2021, OF NATIONWIDE,
GOVERNMENT-PROTECTED, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES,
TAXPAYER-FUNDED, CHILD-MURDERS BY “ABORTION”,
IN THE MILLIONS ?

 

[]

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

 

 

10 Week Abortion (06)

10 Week Abortion
https://www.abortionno.org/abortion-photos/nggallery/page/2

 

14 ROLL CALL VOTES CAST MARCH TO JUNE, 2021 BY SC REPRESENTATIVES AND SC SENATORS ON FY 2021-2022 STATE BUDGET H4100 RELATED TO FUNDING OF: 1) CHILD-MURDER BY “ABORTION”, 2) CHILD-MURDERERS BY “ABORTION”, and 3) SC STATE GOVERNMENT’S OWN “ABORTION” FACILITY (MUSC “Medical Center”)
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/07/06/14-roll-call-votes-cast-march-to-june-2021-by-sc-representatives-and-sc-senators-on-fy-2021-2022-state-budget-h4100-related-to-funding-of-1-child-murder-by-abortion-2-child-murderers-b/

 

BY JUNE 30, 2022, THE END OF THE FY 2021-2022 FISCAL YEAR,
WILL CERTAIN SC LEGISLATORS AND THE SC GOVERNOR
BE DE FACTO ACCESSORIES BEFORE-THE-FACT TO MURDER
BECAUSE OF THE EXPENDITURE(S) OF EITHER “ABORTION” AND/OR “ABORTIONIST”
FUNDING AUTHORIZED IN THIS FISCAL YEAR’S SC STATE BUDGET H4100 ?
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/07/02/by-june-30-2022-the-end-of-the-fy-2021-2022-fiscal-year-will-certain-sc-legislators-and-the-sc-governor-be-de-facto-accessories-before-the-fact-to-murder-because-of-either-abortion-and-or-abo/

 

Several SC Legislators, SC Governor admonished with God’s Word / the Bible /                        Proverbs 6; declaring to them: “God hates hands that shed innocent blood.”
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/07/01/several-sc-legislators-sc-governor-admonished-with-gods-word-the-bible-proverbs-6-declaring-to-them-god-hates-hands-that-shed-innocent-blood/

 

God’s Word says He hates hands that shed innocent blood. Proverbs 6:16,17, KJV
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/06/30/gods-word-says-he-hates-hands-that-shed-innocent-blood-proverbs-61617-kjv/

___

 

OBEY GOD (Acts 5:29, KJV).  IGNORE ROE

INTERPOSE  [ Lesser Magistrates ( SC Legislators, SC Governor, SC Attorney General ) ]

ESTABLISH JUSTICE NOW !!!

Exodus 20:13, Matthew 19:18
Amos 5:15
Proverbs 21:3
Psalm 89:14
Psalm 97:2
Micah 6:8
Psalm 82:3,4
Romans 13:1-4, KJV

END (not Regulate) CHILD-MURDER BY “ABORTION” NOW !!!

PASS PERSONHOOD NOW !!!

H3568 – Personhood Act of South Carolina
S381 – Personhood Act of South Carolina
___

Christians for Personhood

ChristiansforPersonhood.com

ChristianLifeandLiberty.net, “Personhood Act”

ChristianLifeandLiberty.net, “Right to Life Act of SC”

RighttoLifeActofSC.net

BY JUNE 30, 2022, THE END OF THE FY 2021-2022 FISCAL YEAR, WILL CERTAIN SC LEGISLATORS AND THE SC GOVERNOR BE DE FACTO ACCESSORIES BEFORE-THE-FACT TO MURDER BECAUSE OF THE EXPENDITURE(S) OF EITHER “ABORTION” AND/OR “ABORTIONIST” FUNDING AUTHORIZED IN THIS FISCAL YEAR’S SC STATE BUDGET H4100 ?

Published by:

BY JUNE 30, 2022, THE END OF THE FY 2021-2022 FISCAL YEAR,
WILL CERTAIN SC LEGISLATORS AND THE SC GOVERNOR BE DE FACTO
ACCESSORIES BEFORE-THE-FACT TO MURDER BECAUSE OF THE EXPENDITURE(S)
OF EITHER
ABORTION” AND/OR “ABORTIONIST” FUNDING AUTHORIZED IN THIS
FISCAL YEAR’S
SC STATE BUDGET H4100 ?
________

SC Code of Laws
Title 16 – Crimes and Offenses
CHAPTER 1 – Felonies and Misdemeanors; Accessories
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c001.php

SECTION 16-1-40. Accessory.

A person who aids in the commission of a felony or is an accessory before the fact in the commission of a felony by counseling, hiring, or otherwise procuring the felony to be committed is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be punished in the manner prescribed for the punishment of the principal felon. [ emphasis added ] 
________


INTENTIONALLY KILLING AN UNBORN CHILD IN THE WOMB IS DE FACTO MURDER

ONE DAY IT WILL AGAIN BE DE JURE MURDER AS WELL, AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY** IN SOUTH CAROLINA LAW:

Code Of Laws Of South Carolina – 1962
Volume 4, Title 16 – Abortion
Section 16-82; Section 16-83
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/Code-Of-Laws-Of-South-Carolina-1962-Volume-4-Title-16-Abortion.pdf

** Note: The incremental child-murder regulation SC Heartbeat Bill (S.1) signed into law by SC Governor McMaster on February 18, 2021 is NOT the most “pro-life” [sic] law passed by the SC Legislature in History. That is FALSE.
________


FY 2021-2022 State Budget; Ratified by SC Legislature June 21

Part 1B Provisos [ See Provisos 33.12, 33.25, Proviso 108.4 ]
www.scstatehouse.gov/sess124_2021-2022/appropriations2021/tap1b.pdf


SC Government-funding of child-murder and child-murderers (e.g., Planned Parenthood) in the FY 2021-2022 SC State Budget H4100 as ratified by the “Republican” super-majority (65%) SC Legislature, and signed into law by “Republican” SC Governor McMaster, whose Governor’s Veto Message did not INTERPOSE and de-fund ANY SC Government-funding of child-murder or child-murderers.


1) Medicaid Hyde** Amendment “abortions (rape, incest, so-called life of the mother)
Funded in Part 1B of H4100, Section 33 (DHHS/Medicaid); as evidenced by Proviso 33.12 – PART 1B Document pp. 346, 347

** Note: The Hyde Amendment is NOT a pro-life amendment; the Hyde Amendment allows the FUNDING of selected “abortions” in cases of rape, incest, and so-called life of the mother.


2) State and Federal “family planning” funds for mass-murderers Planned Parenthood
Proviso 33.25 – PART 1B Document p. 352


3) Selected “abortions” in State “Health” Insurance Plan (rape, incest, so-called life of the mother)
Proviso 108.4 – PART 1B Document p. 458


4) SC State Government’s own “Abortion” facility: Medical University of South Carolina** (MUSC) “Medical Center”
PART 1A, Section 23, pp. 59-62

In 2019, the SC State Government’s own “abortion” facility, the taxpayer-subsidized “Medical Center” of the Medical University of South Carolina, perpetrated 41 child-murders according to SC DHEC statistics.

‘Abortions’ Committed in SC by Facility in 2019 (SC DHEC)
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2020-11-19-SC-DHEC-Abortions-by-Occurrence-in-SC-2019.pdf


** The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) is governed by a Board of Trustees.

MUSC Leadership
“As the state’s flagship hospital and medical university, The Board of Trustees is the final authority and governing body of the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), its colleges, outreach programs and ancillary functions. The Board names the principal officers of the organization, including the President.”
________


During the time period March – June 2021, the SC House and/or SC Senate deliberated
on the FY 2012-2022 SC State Budget Bill H4100. Numerous floor votes were taken on
pro-life amendments; on Sections 23, 33, and 108; on Second Reading of the Budget
in each chamber; on Third Reading of the Budget in each chamber; on further pro-life
amendments to the Senate Budget version by the SC House; and on the Conference
Committee Report in each chamber. The SC Governor then had his opportunity to
exercise his veto authority upon the State Budget as Ratified by the SC Legislature.

Examination of certain Roll Call votes in the SC House and SC Senate will provide
accountability and indicate culpability for which Representatives and Senators are
responsible for authorizing the expenditure of taxpayer funds to fund child-murder and/or child-murderers (e.g., Planned Parenthood) in the FY 2021-2022 SC State Budget H4100.

While it may be possible to determine interim and partial funding for “abortion” and “abortionists” during the course of the 2021-2022 fiscal year ( July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022 ) via FOIA requests, it will not be until after the close of the fiscal year, i.e., after June 30, 2022, that the totality of such funding can be determined.

Previous SC State Budgets:
Selected “Abortion” and Planned Parenthood taxpayer-funding in SC State Budgets for FY 2018-2019 and FY 2019-2020 (Partial)
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2020/04/07/sc-state-budget-abortion-and-planned-parenthood-taxpayer-funding-in-sc-state-budget/
________


Do South Carolina’s Representatives, Senators, and Governor fear God ?


“Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.”
Proverbs 3:7, KJV

“The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: …”
Proverbs 8:13a, KJV

“… by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.”
Proverbs 16:6b, KJV

“The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; …”
Proverbs 15:33a, KJV

“It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Hebrews 10:31, KJV
__

Christians for Personhood