Tag Archives: Personhood

[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


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
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
[ 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 ]



Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
December 31, 2018/Revised January 2, 2019


living unborn baby at eight weeks


Posted here as four-page pdf.


Christians for Personhood newsletter
Steve Lefemine, Christian pro-life missionary
exec. dir., Christians for Personhood
December 31, 2018                                                                                      

 Christians for Personhood
 P.O. Box 12222, Columbia, S.C.  29211  *  CP@spiritcom.net   
God says:  “Thou shalt not kill (murder).”  Exodus 20:13, KJV

December 31, 2018


Dear Pro-Life, Pro-Personhood Christian,

There is a hymn in The Baptist Hymnal (© Copyright 1991) entitled “ God of Our Fathers” (#629). The first stanza starts with these words, “God of our fathers, whose almighty hand …”.  Then, halfway through the second stanza,

     “Be Thou our ruler, guardian, guide, and stay, Thy Word our law, Thy paths our chosen way.” [emph. added]

Author Daniel Roberts wrote this hymn in 1876 for a “Centennial” Fourth of July celebration.  In 1892 it was included in the Protestant Episcopal Hymnal, and now is published in 366 hymnals (source: Hymnary.org).

We may still sing this hymn, 142 years after it was written; but in an America of about 61 million children reported murdered by “abortion” since the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade Opinion, and in an America where sodomite “marriage” is considered “lawful” [sic] after the 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell Opinion, we do not live this hymn.

In America today as we enter 2019, is there a faithful remnant Christian people extant in this country who possess the knowledge, vision (spiritual, prophetic), faith, courage, and will to seek to re-establish the Bible, the Word of God, as the rule in our lives, our families, our churches, and our civil government, as did the early New England Puritan colonial founders in this land in the 1600’s ?  God says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:…” (Hosea 4:6, KJV).  In the Proverbs, knowledge is valued and seen worthy of pursuit; it is mentioned in 22 of the 31 chapters of Proverbs.  God says, “Where there is no vision (spiritual, prophetic), the people perish:” (Proverb 29:18, KJV); yet within American evangelicalism, the prophetic spirit is generally quenched, and the prophetic ministry often denied and rejected (1 Thessalonians 5:19, 20; Ephesians 4:11,12, KJV).  John the Baptist was called by the Son of God the greatest of prophets (Luke 7:26-28, KJV), and yet John the Baptist wrote not one word of the Scriptural canon (66 books of the Bible). The prophetic ministry, despite all the red herring and strawman arguments to the contrary, does not any longer include adding to the written text of Scripture.  The canon is closed. And the prophetic ministry does not only include foretelling, but most frequently today is manifested as forthtelling (e.g., preaching, and not just by pastors), as did John the Baptist (Matthew 14:3-5, KJV).  To preach the Word of God from the 66 books of the Bible is to prophesy, and the sword of the Spirit is unsheathed for its work when it is dutifully applied to the matter at hand, as did John the Baptist.  Furthermore, the Bible says, “But without faith it is impossible to please” God (Hebrews 11:6, KJV); and, “… with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26, KJV).  Do American Christians have the courage and will to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” ? (Jude v.3, KJV).  Yes, I believe so, and we do not need the defeatist, escapist, Jesuitical Futurists to discourage us ! Read Psalm 110:1, KJV; quoted in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42,43; Acts 2:34,35; Hebrews 10:12,13, KJV.

Do you know why the State of Connecticut is called “The Constitution State” ?  The first constitution written in America, adopted January 14, 1639, was The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, which stated in the Preamble:

For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:”  [emphasis added]

Later in the same year, the Fundamental Agreement, or Original Constitution of the Colony of New Haven was adopted June 4, 1639, as a series of questions adopted in the affirmative by the assembled meeting, including:

Query I. WHETHER the scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to GOD and men, as well in families and commonwealth, as in matters of the church ?  (Agreed to unanimously by holding up of hands, no man dissenting).  [emphasis added]

Query II. WHEREAS … as in matters that concern the gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public [offices] which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature, we would all of us be ordered by those rules which the scripture holds forth to [us]; this covenant was called a plantation [civil] covenant, to distinguish it from a church covenant. (Agreed to unanimously by holding up of hands, no man dissenting).  [excerpt, emphasis added]

The two documents above ordering civil government are part of America’s Christian heritage.  It is a matter of the historical record.  There is much, much more.  Click on the No King but King Jesus ! link in the online version of this newsletter posted at the Christians for Personhood website [ http://christiansforpersonhood.com ] to see for yourself.

No King but King Jesus !  ( The Lord Jesus Christ )
Declarations and Evidences of Christian Faith in America’s Colonial Charters, State Constitutions, and other Historical Documents during over 375 Years of American History: 1606 to 1982

Christian, do you know why America has been a blessed nation on the earth in the past ?  Read Psalm 33:12; Proverb 14:34; Isaiah 33:22, KJV.  Do you know why America is already being judged and is approaching calamitous Judgment even now ?  Read Psalm 9:17, Deuteronomy chapter 28, and Leviticus chapter 26.  There are national, corporate blessings and cursings (judgments) upon nations for obeying and disobeying God and His Word, the Bible.

     America as founded was in great measure a fruit of the Christian Protestant ReformationThe Word of God set much of northern Europe free from the spiritual darkness and tyranny of Popery with the launch of the Reformation in 1517, restoring the Biblical Truth of Justification by Faith Alone.  Eventually and consequently, civil liberty improved among Reformation nations.  The Bible says, “…where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Corinth. 3:17, KJV).

Just as the Pilgrims (Reformed Puritan Separatist Christians) fled Europe to escape religious persecution, coming to America to seek religious liberty, so did many others.  They sought to establish a life based upon the Word of God ( The Bible ).  To the degree the Founding and Framing and following generations of America followed the Bible, this nation has been blessed.

  American Slavery was a gross exception, for which, without repentance, this nation was Divinely and calamitously judged with the War Between Americans, 1861-1865; much as America is again today in 2018, headed for a national bloodbath if we will not repent of the shedding of innocent blood by child-murder by “abortion” and rightly, truly, “ establish Justice” for all human beings. Furthermore, the ongoing incremental “regulation” of this gross national corporate sin of child-murder will not spare us from God’s Judgment, just as the “regulation” of the gross national corporate sin of American Slavery did not spare the nation from the “ terrible war” given by God to “ both North and South” and the attendant loss of 600,000 – 700,000 American lives in 1861-1865.

So how many Americans, including Christians, understand today, without the Christian Protestant Reformation, there would not have been the “America” which was Declared Independent in 1776; and whose Constitution was Signed in 1787, and Ratified in 1788, and Implemented in 1789; and in which the Individual Rights of American citizens are protected from the federal government by the Bill of Rights which was Ratified in 1791 !!!???

In the decade before the first shots of the American Revolution (War for American Independence) were fired on the green (common) at Lexington (Mass.) on April 19, 1775, English jurist William Blackstone published his four books of Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769).  “The Commentaries were long regarded as the leading work on the development of English law and played a role in the development of the American legal system.”  “The Commentaries are often quoted as the definitive pre- Revolutionary source of common law by United States courts.”  “For decades, a study of the Commentaries was required reading for all first year law students.”  Blackstone’s Commentaries were used before, and for approximately 100 years after, the American Revolution (1776-1783) to train lawyers in the United States, including at the University of South Carolina School of Law during part of the Reconstruction Era (1867-1877) after the USC Law School opened in 1867.

University of South Carolina Law School curriculum included Blackstone’s Commentaries at times during period 1867-1877:

USC Law School History: Reconstruction Era (1867-1877)  [excerpts, emphasis added]

The University of South Carolina School of Law was established as one of ten academic schools when South Carolina College was reorganized as the University of South Carolina in 1865 and 1866.  The Board of Trustees elected twenty-seven year old South Carolina attorney Alexander Cheves Haskell as the first professor of law and the law school opened on October 7, 1867. Professor Haskell developed his own system of leading the junior class through a course in Blackstone’s Commentaries and the senior class through a course on Stephens’ Pleading. … [ continued ]

 USC Law School History: Reconstruction Era (1867-1877)  [continued]

From the opening of the law school in October 1867 until the death of Professor Melton on December 4, 1875, classes were held in the University Library, now the South Caroliniana Library, and DeSaussure College. … The Board of Trustees chose Franklin J. Moses, Sr., the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, as Melton’s successor.  Under Moses the curriculum of the law school was modified to place a heavy emphasis on Blackstone’s Commentaries and Kent’s Lectures.

William Blackstone
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)

[ excerpts, emphasis added ]

Sect. 2:  Of the Nature of Laws in General

“The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures.”

“Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.”

“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.”

In other words, Blackstone’s Commentaries, which were used before, and for 100 years after, the American Revolution (1776-1783) to train lawyers in the United States, said “all human laws” are to be consistent with the Word of God, the Bible !!!

[ Portion omitted ]


Illinois State Supreme Court  ( Richmond v. Moore, 1883 )
“… our laws and our institutions
must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise.  In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian, …” [47 Am.Rep. 449]  [emphasis added]


Just as the Word of God unsheathed, set free nations on the European Continent during the Reformation, so can the sword of the Spirit set America free as we enter 2019.  It is not “conservativism”, or the Republican Party (and certainly not the Democrat Party), or the Romish/ecumenical so-called “Pro-Life Movement” which will deliver America from the suicidal path we are on presently, of national calamity, financial collapse, destruction, and possibly the terrible divine recompense of a bloodbath for national sin as the nation experienced 1861-1865.

Especially we who are called by the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ must Repent and turn from our wicked ways. Then God will hear from heaven, forgive our sin, and heal our land.  We must Repent of not doing God’s work, in God’s way, according to God’s Word, for His Glory !  In the pro-life arena, these sins include unequal yoking with unbelievers and false religionists, and consequently, pursuing incremental “regulation” of child-murder instead of standing in faith and obedience upon the Word of God and striving for abolition and the establishment of justice now !

Christian, the whole purpose of this newsletter, is to affirm and impart what Blackstone wrote about 250 years ago in his Commentaries, which were used to train lawyers in America for 100 years, including right here in Columbia, South Carolina at the USC Law School; i.e., ALL human laws are to be founded upon either 1) “the law of revelation” (“the holy scriptures”, the Bible), and/or 2) “the law of nature” (God’s Law in Nature, not Romish so-called natural law).

“The committee convened to frame” the Fundamental Orders (Constitution) of Connecticut (1639) “was charged to make the laws:”
  As near the law of God as they can be.

[ William J. Federer, America’s God and Country Encyclopedia Of Quotations, 1994, p.177.]

So it is the Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God, which is the authoritative and rightful source of human law.

For the Bible-believing Christian that truth corresponds well with his or her affirmation of the Bible as his or her own supreme, final authority.  The Bible is the supreme, final authority for the born-again Christian.

However, by definition, the Bible (66 books) is not the supreme, final authority for any other (false) religion, whether that false religion is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, etc., etc.

As regards Roman Catholicism, the false Roman Catholic “bible” [sic] has 73 books, not 66 books, despite stern warnings in the Word of God not to add or subtract from God’s Word [ e.g., Revelation 22:18,19, KJV ].

Catechism of the [ Roman ] Catholic Church
# 138  The [ Roman Catholic ] Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.  [ Note: The Christian Bible has 39 books in the Old Testament. ] [ comments added ]

Unlike as for Biblical Christianity, the Bible is not the supreme, final authority for Roman Catholicism.  Rome claims “Both Scripture and Tradition” as her authority, as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy.

Catechism of the [ Roman ] Catholic Church
#82 As a result the [ Roman Catholic ] Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted [sic], does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” 44 [ comments, emphasis added ]

So how can professing Christians “yoke up” with followers of the false religion of Roman Catholicism when Roman Catholicism is NOT Biblical Christianity, and does not have the same Biblical supreme, final authority ? “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”  Amos 3:3, KJV.

Ans.: They cannot and be obedient to God and His Holy Word, e.g., 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Ephesians 5:11-13, KJV.

Without the Bible (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 19:18, Amos 5:15, Psalm 89:14, Proverb 21:3, KJV) as Rome’s supreme, final authority, the Papacy legitimized supporting legislation to incrementally “regulate” child-murder:

Papal Legitimization of Incremental Child-Murder “Regulation” Legislation: EVANGELIUM VITAE ( “The Gospel of Life[sic] )
25 March 1995 | Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II papal encyclical

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. … when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences … This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law [ sic – False ! ], but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”  ( EV, #73.)  [ excerpt, emphasis added ]

America has fallen so far from her roots of 400 years ago in Christ and His Word; has so embraced Romish thinking (2 Corinthians 10:5, KJV); as to become captive to the unconstitutional plague of judicial supremacy, foolishly submitting to the tyranny of accepting Supreme Court Opinions ( !!! ) as the “supreme law of the land”, despite the fact any literate person can read Article VI, Cl 2 of the US Constitution and see that is not the case !!!

     The US Supreme Court has done to the US Constitution what the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy has for centuries done to God’s Word, the Holy Bible: usurped, perverted, ignored, corrupted and rejected the authority of the written text for its own pronouncements:

The Christian Statesman – ‘For the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ’
Court Tradition, or the Constitution Alone?
November-December 2005  Vol. 148., No. 6, pp. 15-19.

“… the [ US ] Supreme Court became to the [ US ] Constitution what the Roman Catholic Church had become to the Bible.  Constitutionally speaking, there are few “Protestants” today.  Few believe in the doctrine of the [ US ] Constitution alone.  Few even know it exists.”  [ Excerpt. p. 15 ]

The way back is the Lord Jesus Christ.  He is THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE. (John 14:6, KJV)


In Christ,

Steve Lefemine, Christian pro-life missionary
exec. dir., Christians for Personhood


Posted here as four-page pdf:

Christians for Personhood newsletter
Steve Lefemine, Christian pro-life missionary
exec. dir., Christians for Personhood
December 31, 2018


Personhood Report:
Opposition of Pope Appointed US Roman Catholic Bishops to Multiple States’ Personhood Legislation: 2006 – 2012

Michigan (2006)
Georgia (2008)
Colorado (2008, 2009/2010, 2012)
Montana (2008, 2009)
North Dakota (2009)
Florida (2009)
Missouri (2010)
Mississippi (2011)

William Blackstone
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1863)
Volume I, Books I & II
pp. title, 25, 28, 29

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina ( 1998 – 2018 )

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

In Law, No Exceptions to Human Personhood

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
November 30, 2018 / Edited December 4, 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.

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


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 beginning at fertilization 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 previous 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 – 2018 )

So February 2018 marked 20 years in which Personhood legislation has been active in the SC State Legislature.
During the 20 years from 1998 to 2018, 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 ]


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

[ 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 ]


Posted previously on Christians for Personhood blog:

Personhood Report: In Law, No Exceptions to Human Personhood
January 30, 2018

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998-2018)

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
November 29, 2018/ Edited November 30,2018

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998 – 2018)

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina ( 1998 – 2018 )

Principled SC personhood legislation has been introduced in the SC House continuously since February 1998.

Principled SC personhood legislation has been introduced in the SC Senate continuously since 2005, plus the first time in February 1998.

1997-1998 Session:
House H.4558 introduced Feb 1998 –
22 co-sponsors
Senate S.1060 introduced Feb 1998 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess112_1997-1998/bills/1060.htm
9 co-sponsors

1999-2000 Session:
House H.3135 –
20 co-sponsors
No Senate personhood bill

2001-2002 Session
House H.3252 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess114_2001-2002/bills/3252.htm
27 co-sponsors
No Senate personhood bill

2003-2004 Session
House H.3190 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess115_2003-2004/bills/3190.htm
34 co-sponsors
No Senate personhood bill

2005-2006 Session
House – H.3213 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3213.htm
52 co-sponsors
Senate S.111 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess116_2005-2006/bills/111.htm
7 co-sponsors


SOUTH CAROLINA (2005) – First (only) time Personhood legislation passes SC House of Representatives, albeit with fatal flaw rape “exception” amendment allowing abortifacient drug use

Personhood legislation (Bill – H.3213) passed in the South Carolina House on Second Reading, April 13, 2005 by a vote of 95 – 18, albeit with a fatal flaw rape EXCEPTION amendment for a so-called “morning-after-pill” (an abortifacient causing chemical abortions)  that was added to the bill on the SC House floor prior to passage which allowed for this abortifacient drug to be given to a woman in the case of rape.  The bill then passed as amended on Third Reading, April 14, 2005 by a vote of 91 – 10, and was sent to the SC Senate, where it was later assigned to the Judiciary Committee.  Two Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearings were held, however no Subcommittee debate was conducted, and no vote was taken on the bill, effectively killing H.3213 for the 2005-2006 Session.

SC House Judiciary Committee, April 5, 2005 – H.3213
Audio (38:33) – Following debate, bill passed favorably by vote of 15 – 5 (roll call)

SC Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, May 4, 2005 – S.111 / H.3213
Audio (40:50) – Public hearing, no debate or vote

SC Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, May 18, 2005 – S.111 / H.3213
Audio (36:09) – Public hearing, no debate or vote

Personhood Bill Passes in South Carolina House
April 14, 2005  [ URL link no longer functions ]

‘South Carolina House Passes Personhood Bill’ (with fatal flaw) – April 14, 2005

TAKE ACTION TO PASS the “Right to Life Act of South Carolina”


2007-2008 Session
House H.3284
35 co-sponsors
Senate S.313 – www.scstatehouse.gov/sess117_2007-2008/bills/313.htm
10 co-sponsors

2009-2010 Session
House H.3526
54 co-sponsors
Senate S.450 – http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/450.htm
23 co-sponsors [ Note: five co-sponsors bailed out on April 13, 2010 Recall vote ]

2011-2012 Session
House H.3945
53 co-sponsors
Senate S.616 – http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/616.htm
20 co-sponsors

2013-2014 Session
House H.3584 –
28 co-sponsors
Senate S.457 – http://scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/457.htm
22 co-sponsors

2015-2016 Session – First (only) Personhood Constitutional Amendments introduced

Personhood Act
Senate S.129 –
5 co-sponsors

Personhood Constitutional Amendment
Senate S.719 –
13 co-sponsors

Personhood Constitutional Amendment
House H.4093 –
59 co-sponsors

2017-2018 Session
House H.3530 –
53 co-sponsors
Senate S.217 – https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/217.htm
20 co-sponsors


Link (pdf): http://christianlifeandliberty.net/2018-11-29-History-of-Personhood-Legislation-in-South-Carolina-1998-2018.pdf

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

Published by:

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

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

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

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


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

Benjamin Dunn

Christian Stegmaier

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


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

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



Benjamin Dunn vying to represent
Republicans for Senate Seat #20

by Michael Reed | THE STANDARD
August 1, 2018

[ Excerpts, emphasis added ]

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


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


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

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


From Christians for Personhood:

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

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


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