Tag Archives: Abortion Exceptions

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

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4, 2018 – Report #2:

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
May 8, 2018

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4, 2018 – Report #2:
_____________________________
_____________________________

[ Report sent previously by text ]

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #2:

Personhood Bill S217 vs Hutto “Hyde-Amdt”-type fake “pro-life” replacement amdt to H3548 vs SCCL’s euthanasia Dismemberment Bill H3548

/// The Hutto “Hyde-Amdt”-type fake “pro-life” replacement amdt language which supplanted the euthanasia Dismemberment Bill language was adopted on a 24 Y – 1 N vote about 9:45pm Wed night, May 2. About one hour later before adjourning for the night, the Senate gave Second Reading (28 Y – 10 N) to H3548, which was now a much different bill, although not a Personhood or true “pro-life” bill. This Hutto/Hyde fake “pro-life” bill did NOT establish Personhood, and had several child-murder “exceptions” for rape, incest, life and serious health risk of mother.

/// The two Roll Call votes above  are listed in Senate Journal for 5/2/2018
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180502.htm

/// Earlier same day, Wed, May 2 (beginning after 3:30pm and continuing into evening), Senator Cash cont’d to offer several Amdt’s (he began with his first major Amdt Tues evening, May 1) to H3548 Dismemberment Bill, which was then still in its pro-euthanasia form; “Redefining How to Kill Babies”, allowing dismemberment of unborn children after  first euthanizing  (murdering) them inside the womb, by sticking a long needle into baby’s heart with an injection, to stop the heart, intentionally causing death. This sick legislation advocated by SC Citizens for “Life” is NOT Pro-Life !!!

/// Amdt No. 12 offered by Senator Cash exposed the pro-euthanasia aspect of H3548 and attempted to close the “Euthanasia first (Kill the Baby first); then Dismember the Baby” loophole, by adding language to also proscribe “… after first killing a living unborn child, knowingly to dismember an unborn child and extract him one piece at a time from the uterus…”

/// None of the several Amdt’s proposed by Senator Cash to H3548 on Wed, May 2 were adopted; text of each one may be seen in Senate Journal ///

[ End ]

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4, 2018 – Report #1:

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
May 7, 2018

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4, 2018 – Report #1:
___________________________
___________________________

[ Report sent initially by text Fri, May 4, 2018 ]

SC Senate ‘Abortion’ Bills battle, May 1 – 4 – Report #1:

Personhood Bill S217 vs Hutto “Hyde-Amdt”-type fake “pro-life” replacement amdt to H3548 vs SCCL’s euthanasia Dismemberment Bill H3548.

/// There is far too much to cover in one text all that occurred between about 5:30pm Tues May 1 when debate started on Dismemberment Bill H3548 (Special Order), and sometime before 1am this morning Fri May 4 when Republican super-majority Senate voted to kill / Recommit back to Med Aff Comm, the Hutto “Hyde-Amdt”-type fake “pro-life” replacement amdt language which had supplanted the euthanasia Dismemberment Bill language, making H3548 now a much different bill, though not a Personhood / true “pro-life” bill either.

/// This Hutto / Hyde amended replacement version of H3548 did NOT establish Personhood, and had several child-murder “exceptions” for rape, incest, life and serious health risk of mother.

/// The Dem’s began their filibuster about 2:20pm Thurs May 3, and four cloture votes were taken over the next 10 hours or so, with these results (lesser of 26 votes or 3/5 of those present and voting needed for cloture): Cloture #1:  23 Y – 22 N; Cloture #2: 24 Y – 21 N; Cloture #3: 24 Y – 21 N; Cloture #4: 25 Y – 20 N.

/// So Cloture vote #4 was just ONE vote short of the required 26. And in Cloture vote #4, RINO’s Leatherman (Florence) and Rankin (Horry) again joined the 18 Dem’s to block cloture.

/// After Cloture vote #4 (25 Y – 20 N) failed by just ONE vote from getting the needed 26 votes because RINO Senate President Pro Tem / Finance Comm Chair Leatherman and RINO Senate Judiciary Comm Chair Rankin both voted NO to cloture, then Hutto moved to kill / Recommit H3548 back to Med Aff Comm, which passed, 24 Y – 21 N.  Joining the 18 Dem’s were: Campsen (Charleston), Gregory (Lancaster), Leatherman (Florence), Massey (Edgefield), Rankin (Horry), and Shealy (Lexington)

/// More to come…

/// Senate Journal (5/3/18) – http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/sj18/20180503.htm

Personhood Report: In Law, No Exceptions to Human Personhood

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
January 28, 2018

Personhood Report:

In Law, No Exceptions to Human Personhood

________________________________
________________________________

In both Webster’s Dictionary and Black’s Law Dictionary used by attorneys, the first definition for “Person” is: “A human being.”

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

“person. … 1. A human being. – Also termed natural person.
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2013-12-09-Blacks-Law-Dictionary-Person-3.pdf

So Is or Is Not the developing preborn baby in the womb of a human mother, “A human being.” ?

Yes, of course.  The answer is obvious:


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

________________________________________

This page
[ below ] shows pictures of abortion at 7 weeks.
First, here are some pictures of living unborn babies at 7 weeks:


http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-at-7-weeks/

 

http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-at-7-weeks/

_____________________________________
_____________________________________

Any “Exceptions” to Personhood, and we no longer have Personhood, we no longer have a Personhood Bill.

Either a child in the womb is a human being and therefore a person, or they are not.  There are no “Exceptions” to Human Personhood.

The Black’s Law Dictionary and the Webster’s Dictionary first definition of a “Person”, is “A Human Being” !!!

__________________________________________
__________________________________________

Personhood Legislation was first introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly in February 1998 ( H.4558, S.1060 ), and has been active every year since, including in the current 2017-2018 SC Legislative Session:

2017-2018 Personhood Bills in the SC State Legislature: S.217, H.3530

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina ( 1998 – 2016 )
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2016-11-12-History-of-Personhood-Legislation-in-South-Carolina-1998-2016.pdf

So February 2018 will mark 20 years in which Personhood legislation has been active in the SC State Legislature.

During the 19 years from 1998 to 2017, a SC Personhood Bill passed the full SC House of Representatives ONE TIME, on April 14, 2005, albeit with a fatal flaw so-called “morning-after-pill” rape “exception” amendment which was unfortunately added on the floor of the SC House of Representatives, after the bill ( H .3213 – 52 co-sponsors ) had passed both the Constitutional Laws Subcommittee and the full House Judiciary Committee, without amendment.  There can be no “exceptions” to recognizing the “Personhood” of all human beings at fertilization ( conception ), or we no longer have Personhood [ See also Footnote #54 of 1973 Roe v. Wade Opinion ].

_______________________________________
_______________________________________

Re: Roe v Wade, Footnote #54 – “Life of the Mother”

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

Argued: December 13, 1971   [ Re-argued October 11, 1972 ]

Decided: January 22, 1973

[ Note: Oral Reargument which focused on the “Personhood” of the preborn human being ( aka “fetus” ) took place October 11, 1972
– Audio here (approx 64 minutes), Transcript here ]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

Roe v Wade, Footnote #54 – Re: “Life of the Mother”
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html#f54


[ Footnote 54 ]
When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists.  The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158]  in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?”  [ emphasis added ]

There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?  [ emphasis added ]