Tag Archives: Roe v. Wade

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

Published by:

ROE v. WADE Opinion, January 22, 1973:

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

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

____________________________________________
____________________________________________

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

Argued: December 13, 1971

Reargued: October 11, 1972

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

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

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

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

 

ROE v. WADE Opinion:

Part IX

A. The appellee [ Texas ] and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157]  for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant [ Jane Roe ] conceded as much on reargument. [FN 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [FN 52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  [ emphasis added; identification of parties to the case in brackets added ]

__________________________________________________

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

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

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

continued…

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

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

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

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:

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

Texas Asst Attorney General Robert Flowers:

“Yes, and entirely to the constitutional perspective.”

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:

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

Texas Asst Attorney General Robert Flowers:

“Yes, sir, it is, …”

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

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

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

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

[ emphasis added ]
_________________

South Carolina Constitution
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

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

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

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

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

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

“Murder” is the killing of any person

[ emphasis added ]
___________________________

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

SECTION 16-3-10. “Murder” defined.

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

www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________

Ignore Roe !

Interpose !
( LesserMagistrate.com )

Establish Justice, Now !

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

PASS PERSONHOOD NOW !

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

S.381
H.3568
(scstatehouse.gov)

 

God says,

“Thou shalt not kill (murder).”

Exodus 20:13, KJV

 

ChristiansforPersonhood.com

 

Non-tax-deductible contributions may be sent to:

Christians for Personhood
PO Box 12222
Columbia, SC 29211

CP@spiritcom.net

‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina Constitutional Law:’

Published by:

PERSONHOOD and South Carolina Constitutional Law:

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

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

South Carolina Constitution
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Written Statement of Herb Titus on H.3252, “Right to Life Act of South Carolina”
given to South Carolina House Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee on April 25, 2001

H.3252 – “Right to Life Act of South Carolina” (SC Personhood Bill in 2001-2002 Session of SC General Assembly)
(Herb Titus testified before the Constitutional Laws Subcommittee by telephone, in addition to submitting this written statement.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignore Roe !

Interpose !
( LesserMagistrate.com )

Establish Justice, Now !

END Child-Murder by “Abortion” Now !

PASS PERSONHOOD NOW !

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

S.381
H.3568
(scstatehouse.gov)

 

God says,

“Thou shalt not kill (murder).”

Exodus 20:13, KJV

ChristiansforPersonhood.com

________________________________________
________________________________________

‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina State Law:’

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

_______________________________________

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

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

_______________________________________

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

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

______________________________________

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

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

_________________________________
_________________________________

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.
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/

____________________________
____________________________

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

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 ]

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 ]

_________________________________________

Posted previously on Christians for Personhood blog:

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

 ‘CORPORATE BLOODGUILT AND REPENTANCE’

Published by:

Columbia Christians for Life

P.O. Box 12222, Columbia, S.C. 29211 * CCL@spiritcom.net * www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net

“… I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

Repentance for America’s Bloodguilt Worship Service

Saturday, January 21, 2017, 12 noon

First Floor Lobby, State House, Columbia, SC 

‘CORPORATE BLOODGUILT AND REPENTANCE’

This message is about Corporate Bloodguilt and Repentance.  Over the last 44 years, it is reported that over 59 Million children in the womb have been killed by the government-protected sin and crime of child-murder-by-“abortion”.  However, regardless of what human governments sanction, God has already spoken, even writing in stone with His own finger, “Thou shalt not kill (murder).”  Exodus 20:13, KJV.  God’s Law is, always has been, and always will be, Higher than Man’s Law.  Acts 5:29, KJV says, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”  The Lord Jesus Christ says in Matthew 4:4, KJV, “MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.”  God’s Word is for all men, for all nations, for all time.  It is error to say God’s Moral Law was only for ancient Israel.

Indeed, Proverb 14:34, KJV says, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”  Psalm 9:17, KJV says, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.”  When it comes to the shedding of the innocent blood of Millions of children in their mothers’ wombs, America stands guilty before God.  Is that not true?

So, does the Bible give us any examples of individual or corporate repentance for the corporate sins of their land?  Yes it does.  I will briefly share two examples: 1) Nineveh at the preaching of Jonah; and 2) Daniel praying while in Persia.

First, Jonah 3:1-10, KJV, preaching to Assyria’s capital Nineveh sometime around 760 BC.  [Read Scripture.]

So at the preaching of the prophet Jonah, the people of Nineveh, from the greatest to the least, repented and reformed.

The Bible says “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way” and so God did not bring judgment upon them.

Corporate repentance, and corporate reformation, resulted in corporate deliverance from the corporate judgment of God.

Second, Daniel 9:1-8, KJV, in Persia, approx. 539 BC, in the first year of king Darius.  [Read Scripture.]

So Daniel, taken captive as a youth in 605 BC upon the invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, is praying to God approx. 66 years later, expressing repentance for the corporate sin of his people and leaders which led to the Babylonian Captivity of Judah from three attacks, 605 BC, 597 BC, and 586 BC.  Will we follow Daniel’s example?

South Carolina is a State with 1000’s of churches, and 100,000’s of professing Christians, but which has murdered over 382,000 children in their mothers’ wombs 1973-2015.  In 2015, South Carolina’s bloodguilt was further documented.

On September 30, 2015, an Ad Hoc Committee of the SC House Legislative Oversight Committee met on State House grounds, and held its first hearing on the connections between certain SC State agencies such as HHS, which administers Medicaid, and Planned Parenthood and other “abortion” “providers” [sic] as they were called.  First let me say, “abortion” is child-murder, and child-murder is not “provided”, it is perpetrated.  Murder is not provided, it is committed.  Using such bureaucratic language, the HHS director under SC Governor Haley described to the SC Representatives on the Ad Hoc Committee the number of children which had been murdered using SC taxpayer Medicaid money.  His most often used bureaucratic term describing the “aborting” mothers, was “beneficiaries”.  In other words, the mothers were so-called “beneficiaries” [sic] of Medicaid money to pay for the murder of their own sons and daughters.  Although the initially reported number of children murdered was later decreased from 222 to 29, FY 2011-2015, even one murder is too many.

This hearing was reported in the press.  Undercover videos had been released beginning in July 2015 which were widely publicized, exposing certain Planned Parenthood officials outside SC trafficking in body parts of “aborted” babies. At SC Governor Haley’s request in August, DHEC inspected SC’s three “abortion” centers.  On September 11, DHEC suspended the licenses of both Columbia’s Planned Parenthood and Greenville’s “abortion” center for multiple violations, including disposing of bodies of “aborted” babies in a landfill, instead of incinerating or burying them.  The deadline for corrective plans and fine payments was September 28.  Each “abortion” center sufficiently responded to DHEC’s Order  regulating the murder of pre-birth children, such that neither child-murder center was shutdown on September 28 or later.

More evidence could be provided of SC’s bloodguilt, such as the nearly $300,000 Medicaid funding given to Planned Parenthood, largely for birth control, much of which is abortifacient, from FY2011-2015.  God hears the cry of the voice of the shed innocent blood of these murdered children.  In Genesis 4:10, KJV after Cain slew righteous Abel, God said, “What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.”  So the legislative hearing which further publicly exposed and documented our corporate bloodguilt as a State, occurred September 30, 2015.  That was a Wednesday.  The next day, Thursday, October 1, 2015, the rains began.  That evening Governor Haley declared a State of Emergency in SC, and over the five days of October 1 – October 5 came the flooding, deaths, and destruction of what we now know as the Great Flood of October 2015.  I believe God judged South Carolina.

The Planned Parenthood child-murder center is located just about one-half mile outside the border of Forest Acres, which with the breeching of multiple dams, was the location of some of the worst flooding and destruction in the State.

It was learned months later the number of “abortions” at Planned Parenthood went up by over 300 in 2015, causing the entire State to report an increase, even though the child-murder centers in Greenville and Charleston reported decreases.

Am I able to prove a spiritual connection between corporate bloodguilt and the 1,000-Year Flood which devastated this State, costing 19 lives, and billions of dollars in damage, some of which remains to this day?  No, I cannot prove it.  However I can tell you God is not mocked, that whatsoever a man, or City, or State, or Nation sows, that shall that man, or City, or State, or Nation also reap.  I can tell you the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the fear of the LORD is to hate evil.  And I can tell you, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”  Hebrews 10:31, KJV.

Corporate Bloodguilt calls for Repentance.  It is the primary reason for which we are gathered here today.

Source: Message: Corporate Bloodguilt and Repentance (Christian Life and Liberty.net)

‘Corporate Bloodguilt and Repentance’ (Audio Message)

(Video) Even Hillary Clinton knows Unborn Child is a Person – Meet the Press, April 3, 2016

Published by:

Christians for Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
April 4, 2016

(Video) Even Hillary Clinton knows Unborn Child is a Person

Meet the Press, April 3, 2016

Hillary Clinton: “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

____________________________

____________________________

Meet the Press – April 3, 2016
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-april-3-2016-n549916

Transcript excerpt ( emphasis added ):

CHUCK TODD:

When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?

HILLARY CLINTON:

Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.

__________________________
__________________________

Video
Clinton: Unborn Children Have No Constitutional Rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_keodvXFNUI

Video – 1:03
Views – 21,467

__________________________
__________________________

Re: SC Personhood Amendment ( S.719 ) on Senate Judiciary Committee April 5 Agenda:

What about all 22 SC Senators ( 13 R, 9 D ) on the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled to take up S.719 SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment in April 5 Meeting ?  Will they all acknowledge the unborn child is a ‘Person’ as even pro-‘abortion’ extremist Hillary Clinton did April 3 ?  So far only seven out of 22 SC Judiciary Committee Senators have done so !

Of these 22 SC Senators, only seven are co-sponsors and/or have signed pledges to support S.719.  See the list* posted here of the 22 SC Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and these Members’ Positions on the S.719 SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment.

[ *Update to List: Judicial supremacist, SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment opponent, selectively pro-‘abortion’ for certain ‘exceptions’, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Larry Martin ( R – Pickens ) has three opponents in the June 14, 2016 Republican Primary for SC Senate District #2. ]

Of the 22 Judiciary Committee Senators, 14 ( 6 R, 8 D ) are lawyers, yet only two ( 2 R ) of these 14 are S.719 co-sponsors.  And yet,  Black’s Law Dictionary (2009), used by attorneys, defines “Person” as “A Human Being”.  So, Person = Human Being.  Why is not every attorney in the SC Senate a co-sponsor of S.719 ?

_________________________
_________________________

Hillary Clinton: ‘The Unborn Person Doesn’t Have Constitutional Rights’
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-doesnt-have-constitutional-rights
April 3, 2016

[ emphasis added ]

(CNSNews.com) – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press today that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

Clinton made the statement in response to a question from “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd. Clinton also said that an unborn child’s constitutional rights are “not something that exists.”

Todd asked: “When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?”

“Well, under our laws, currently, that is not something that exists,” said Clinton. “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now that doesn`t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.

“It doesn’t mean that you don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations, but it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions,” Clinton continued. “And I think that’s an important distinction that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.”

continued…

_____________________
_____________________

Selected Legal Experts Supporting Constitutionality of State-Level Personhood Legislation:

LEGAL EXPERTS SUPPORTING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE-LEVEL PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION IN SC (2001), MISS (2009), ALA (2011), and OK (2012):
Herb Titus is an attorney, constitutional scholar, author, the founding Dean of College of Law/Gov’t at Regent University
Mathew Staver is present Dean of the School of Law at Liberty University; and Liberty Counsel founder and chair
– Judge Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is President Emeritus of Foundation for Moral Law
  May 26, 2015

Excerpts:

“PERSONHOOD” is the key to ENDING child-murder-by-‘abortion’.  A plain reading of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and analogous due process and equal protection language in the State Constitutions [ for example, Article I., Section 3. of the South Carolina Constitution ], indicates that legal status and therefore protection of constitutional rights, is granted to ’PERSONS’ in these provisions. The issue of personhood for the ‘fetus’ as being the preeminently critical issue was specifically addressed by a US Supreme Court Justice during the October 11, 1972 Roe v. Wade Oral Reargument.
[ Go to these internet links to both a transcript and the actual audio of the October 11, 1972 Roe v. Wade Oral Reargument. ]


continued…


THE KEY, CRITICAL, FIRST, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN ROE V. WADE (1973) WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE ‘FETUS’ ( PRE-BIRTH HUMAN BEING ), WOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN LAW AS A LEGAL ‘PERSON’:
[ Note:  American Constitutional Law even recognizes Corporations as legal ‘Persons’, but not preborn Human Beings !!! ]

Excerpt from transcript (edited) of Reargument ( October 11, 1972 ) of Roe v. Wade before the US Supreme Court:

US Supreme Court Justice:
“And the basic constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it ?” 
[ p. 827 ]

Mr. Robert Flowers (Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas):
“Yes, sir, and entitled to the constitutional protection.” 
[ p. 827 ]

US Supreme Court Justice:  “And that’s critical to this case, is it not?”  [ p. 828 ]

Mr. Robert Flowers (Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas):  “Yes, sir, it is. … (continued).”  [ p. 828 ]