Revised June 28, 2021<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I understand there has been quite a bit of discussion online recently addressing the subjects of Personhood and the Abolitionist’s approach.<\/p>\n
Let me begin by stating, Personhood is abolition<\/u>.\u00a0 Here in South Carolina, we have advocated passage of State personhood legislation continuously for the last 19 years since 1998 [ History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina ( 1998 – 2016 )<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0].<\/p>\n The current 2017 legislation in the SC Legislature is called the Personhood Act of South Carolina (S<\/a>.217<\/a> \/ H.3530<\/a>).<\/p>\n South Carolina Personhood legislation recognizes the Creator God-given, unalienable right to life of every human being as a \u201cperson\u201d beginning at fertilization, in SC law.<\/p>\n In my opinion, we will need to pass Personhood legislation, and then we will very likely need interposition of Lesser Magistrates to enforce it once the law is codified and on the books if the passage of Personhood legislation occurs first at the State level.<\/p>\n Personhood and Interposition are NOT mutually exclusive.\u00a0 Quite the contrary.<\/p>\n The way I see it, Personhood is needed first to establish contemporaneous statutory or State constitutional legal legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens of whatever State jurisdiction is involved which has determined in their day, to take a righteous stand against child-murder; and then interposition of Lesser Magistrates would likely be needed to enforce it ( keeping in mind none have so far enforced marriage though over 30 States<\/a> have constitutional bans against sodomite\/lesbian so-called “marriage” [ sic<\/em> ] ).<\/p>\n If Federal Personhood legislation is passed, such as US Rep. Jody Hice’s ( R-GA ) re-introduction of his ( formerly US Rep. Paul Broun’s ) bill, HR 586 [ without\u00a0 <\/em>Creator-denying “species homo sapiens” term ! ]\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 (https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/586<\/a>), then perhaps interposition by State officials would not be necessary.\u00a0 If however, SCOTUS \u201cJustices\u201d further violate their Oaths and Constitutional function by overthrowing legislation such as HR 586, there is the further step available of US Constitution<\/a>, Article III, Section 2<\/a> legislation in which the US Congress has the authority and power to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, such as in HR 2761 which was introduced in the 114th Congress (https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/114th-congress\/house-bill\/2761\/text<\/a>).<\/p>\n For those opposed to Personhood efforts, I wonder how many have listened to, or read the transcript of, the October 11, 1972 Second Oral Argument of Roe v Wade,<\/em> where the “basic constitutional question, initially“, “<\/em>critical to this case“<\/em>, <\/strong>was [ and is<\/em> ] whether or not an unborn child is recognized in law as a \u201cperson\u201d.\u00a0 Once that is done, then the matter becomes legally inarguable; establishing legal recognition of the Creator God-given unalienable right to life of all human beings here in the United States, according to our Federal and State Constitutions, beginning at fertilization, with no “exceptions”.<\/p>\n It is simple, short legislation, applying a present day, inarguably recognizable legal standard, if there is the WILL to do it !<\/p>\n October 11, 1972 Second Oral Argument of Roe v Wade<\/em><\/u> [ with moving transcript ]<\/p>\n Links to alternate edited transcript – http:\/\/christianlifeandliberty.net\/2014-02-23-Landmark-Briefs-and-Arguments-of-the-SCOTUS-Roe-v.-Wade%281973%29-Second-Oral-Argument%28Oct.%2011,%201972%29.docx<\/a><\/p>\n Posting and excerpts below from www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net<\/a> website [edited]:<\/p>\n [ Posted on the ‘Personhood Act’ page as Item #117. ]<\/p>\n “PERSONHOOD” is the key to<\/u> ENDING<\/u> child-murder-by-\u201cabortion\u201d<\/u>.\u00a0 <\/strong>A plain reading of the 5th<\/strong><\/a> and 14th<\/strong><\/a> Amendments of the US Constitution<\/strong><\/a>,<\/strong> and analogous due process and equal protection language in the State Constitutions [ for example, Article I., Section 3. of the South Carolina Constitution<\/strong><\/a> ], indicates that legal status and therefore protection of constitutional rights, is recognized for \u201cPERSONS\u201d<\/u><\/strong> in these provisions. The issue of personhood for the \u201cfetus\u201d as being the preeminently critical issue<\/u> was specifically addressed<\/u><\/em> by a US Supreme Court Justice during the October 11, 1972<\/p>\n Roe v. Wade<\/a><\/em><\/strong> Oral Reargument.\u00a0 [ Go to these internet links to both a transcript<\/strong><\/a> and the actual audio<\/strong><\/a> of the October 11, 1972 Roe v. Wade<\/em><\/a><\/strong> Oral Reargument. ]<\/p>\n THE KEY<\/u>, BASIC<\/u>, AND INITIAL<\/u> CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN ROE V. WADE<\/em> (1973), CRITICAL TO THE CASE<\/u>, WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE \u201cFETUS\u201d <\/strong>( PRE-BIRTH HUMAN BEING ), WOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN LAW AS A LEGAL \u201cPERSON\u201d:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Excerpt from transcript<\/strong><\/a> (edited) of Reargument ( October 11, 1972 ) of Roe v. Wade<\/em> before the US Supreme Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n US Supreme Court Justice: Mr. Robert Flowers (Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas): <\/p>\n Child-murder-by-\u201cabortion” could have been ENDED<\/u><\/strong> in America 44+ years and\u00a059+<\/a> MILLION<\/a><\/strong> dead children ago with FEDERAL<\/strong> Personhood Legislation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Pass Personhood now !<\/strong><\/p>\n Jesus Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords;\u201d ( 1 Timothy 6:15, KJV<\/a> )<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Steve Lefemine<\/p>\n exec. dir., Christians for Personhood<\/a><\/p>\n PO Box 12222<\/p>\n Columbia, South Carolina 29211<\/p>\n
\nAudio – http:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/1970-1979\/1971\/1971_70_18\/reargument <\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – Herb Titus<\/u><\/strong> is an attorney, constitutional scholar, author, the founding Dean of \u00a0\u00a0College of Law\/Gov’t at Regent University
\n– Mathew Staver<\/u><\/strong> is former Dean of the School of Law at Liberty University; and Liberty Counsel<\/strong><\/a> founder and chair
\n– Judge Roy Moore<\/u><\/strong>, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court<\/strong><\/a>, is President Emeritus of Foundation for Moral Law
\n<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 April 5, 2016
\nhttp:\/\/christianlifeandliberty.net\/2016-04-05-Legal-experts-supporting-constitutionality-of-State-level-Personhood-legislation-SC-MISS-ALA-OK-edited-Jan-27-2017.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n“And the basic constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it ?”\u00a0 <\/strong>[ p. 827<\/a> ]<\/p>\n
\n“Yes, sir, and entitled to the constitutional protection.”\u00a0 <\/strong>[ p. 827<\/a> ]
\n
\n<\/strong>US Supreme Court Justice:\u00a0 “And that’s critical to this case, is it not?”\u00a0 <\/strong>[ p. 828<\/a> ]
\n
\n<\/strong>Mr. Robert Flowers (Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas):\u00a0 “Yes, sir, it is. … (continued).”\u00a0 <\/strong>[ p. 828<\/a> ]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n