Prepared Testimony opposing unjust “Equal Protection for Unborn Babies Act” [sic] S.988
Steve Lefemine
exec. dir., Christians for Personhood
SC Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee
Senate Gressette Building, Room 209, Columbia, SC
January 26, 2022
Note: Although signed up with Senate Medical Affairs Committee to speak,
disenfranchised and not given opportunity to speak on January 26, 2022
[ S.988 – scstatehouse.gov ]
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
Non-tax-deductible contributions may be sent to:
Christians for Personhood
PO Box 12222
Columbia, SC 29211
CP@spiritcom.net
Edited December 27, 2021
Audio
ROE v. WADE – FULL SECOND ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE US SUPREME COURT
October 11, 1972
PERSONHOOD is the KEY to ENDING Child-Murder by “Abortion” in America
__________
__________
ROE v. WADE
Second Oral Argument
(Oral Reargument)
October 11, 1972
AUDIO and TRANSCRIPT
Excerpts:
Go to 50:15
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, …”
________
‘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
________
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/
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
Christians for Personhood
PO Box 12222
Columbia, SC 29211
CP@spiritcom.net
Revised November 12, 2021 / Edited November 14, 2021 / Edited May 29, 2022/ Revised July 11, 2022 / Corrected July 12, 2022
History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina ( 1998 – 2021 )
Personhood legislation was first introduced in the SC Legislature in 1998;
and has been filed every year since, for now over 24 years continuously through 2022.
Principled SC personhood legislation was first introduced in the SC House of Representatives in February 1998; and filed continuously through 2022.
Principled SC personhood legislation was first introduced in the SC Senate in February 1998; then filed continuously from 2005 through 2018; and then again in 2021 and 2022.
__________________________________________________
Summary of Personhood Legislation’s greatest progress in SC House and SC Senate (1998 – 2022):
In 2005 the SC House of Representatives passed the Right to Life Act of SC (Personhood Bill), albeit with a fatal flaw rape exception Amendment for use of an abortifacient drug.
In 2016 the SC Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Personhood Bill, and the Bill was placed on the SC Senate Calendar; a subsequent Special Order Vote failed to achieve the 2/3 vote needed.
In 2018 the SC Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Personhood Bill, and the Bill was placed on the SC Senate Calendar; the Senate adopted the Committee Amendment, then no further progress.
__________________________________________________
Details of Personhood Legislation’s proceedings in SC House and SC Senate (1998 – 2022):
F = Vote Failed; P = Vote Passed; NV = No Vote Taken
SC House of Representatives
– SC House Judiciary Committee, Constitutional Laws Subcommittee Public Hearings were conducted 2001 (F), 2004 (P), 2005 (P), 2008 (NV), and 2010 (NV).
– SC House Judiciary Committee Meetings were conducted 2004 (F), 2005 (P).
– SC House of Representatives passed the Right to Life Act of SC (Personhood Bill) 2005 (P – albeit with a fatal flaw rape exception Amendment for use of an abortifacient drug).
– South Carolina Attorney General Opinion – 2005
SC Senate
– SC Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Public Hearings were conducted 2005 (NV – May 4, May 18), 2014 (NV – March 13, April 10), 2016 (P), and 2017 (P – March 30, April 26).
– SC Senate Judiciary Committee Meetings were conducted 2016 (P), 2018 (P).
– Personhood Bill on Calendar of full SC Senate: 2016 (F – Special Order Vote failed to achieve the 2/3 vote needed); 2018 (NV – Committee Amendment adopted, then no further progress).
– Recall Attempt – 2010 (F)
– Recall Attempt – 2018 (F)
______________________________________________
Continued…
‘History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina ( 1998 – 2021 )’
continued here.
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 land. I 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
________________________________________
________________________________________
‘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
_________________________________
_________________________________
