April 12, 2005

UPDATE on "Right to Life Act of South Carolina" (H.3213) - April 12, 2005


1) The Right to Life Act of South Carolina (H.3213) was placed on the "contested" calendar today, and has a strong likelihood of debate beginning on the bill after the SC House finishes the "uncontested" part of the calendar, on Wednesday, April 13.

2) Five additional new co-sponsors signed on today, bringing the total to 51 co-sponsors (46 Republicans, 5 Democrats). The SC House has a total of 124 members, so that mathematically, 63 votes would constitute a majority if all members voted. Therefore, if all 51 co-sponsors were to be present and voting for the bill, we would need an additional 12 votes to assure passage if all 124 members of the SC House voted. [note: there had been a question of whether or not Rep. Dantzler had signed onto the bill, and so his name had not been reported or counted in previous reports; it has now been verified that he is a co-sponsor; most likely, he signed on back in February]


Sponsors: Reps. Davenport, Vaughn, Toole, Tripp, Vick, Simrill, Bingham, J.R. Smith, Rice, Talley, G. Brown, Barfield, Owens, M.A. Pitts, G.R. Smith, Hamilton, White, Clark, Walker, Pinson, Loftis, Leach, McGee, W.D. Smith, Viers, Cato, Perry, Delleney, Altman, Cooper, Dantzler, Haskins, Huggins, Littlejohn, Hiott, Mahaffey, Wilkins, Merrill, D.C. Smith, Herbkersman, Bailey, Ceips, J. Brown, G.M. Smith, Weeks, Coates, F.N. Smith, E.H. Pitts, Thompson, Young and Duncan

3) The bill appeared on the SC House calendar last Thursday (April 7), after having passed the full Judiciary Committee April 5 by a 15-5 vote, and was then reported to the House as having received a favorable Judiciary Committee report, on April 6. A point-of-order 24-hour rule invoked on April 7 put the bill back to the next meeting of the SC House, which was today, Tuesday, April 12.

4) When the bill came up on the uncontested calendar today (approx. 12:40 PM), it was introduced by Rep. Greg Delleney, chairman of the Constitutional Laws Subcommittee (and a co-sponsor of the bill). It was then opposed by Rep. Thayer Rivers (D), who had also spoken articulately against the bill in the Judiciary Committee meeting on April 5. Rep. Rivers (D-Beaufort/Hampton/Jasper Counties) was one of the 5 who voted against the bill in the Judiciary Committee meeting. Rep. Rivers has been outspoken now in two forums against this bill. It might be helpful if people in Beaufort/Hampton/Jasper Counties, particularly in his district (District # 122), would express their concern to him about his opposition to the Right to Life Act of SC (H.3213) [his contact information is given at the end of this e-mail below - call/e-mail/fax TODAY !] On the other hand, persons outside his district can certainly call and e-mail him as well. Be polite. Express to him your concern for his lack of respect for the sanctity of life of pre-birth human beings. Inform him that as a civil minister (Romans 13:4), it is his first duty, after the acknowledgment of God, to prevent the shedding of innocent blood.

5) After Delleney introduced the bill, and Rivers spoke against the bill, then 7 legislators were recorded as "requesting debate," on the bill, which places it on the "contested" part of the House calendar. If the SC House finishes its work on the "uncontested" part of the House calendar tomorrow (Wed., April 13), then the Right to Life Act of SC (H.3213) may be 'first up' for debate on the "contested" part of the calendar. [Those who "requested debate" were: Kennedy, James Smith, Breeland, Miller, Hosey, Jennings, and Mack.]

6) An Opinion of the SC Attorney General was obtained on March 31st, just prior to the Constitutional Laws Subcommittee hearing. It takes the position that the RTL Act of SC is constitutional on-its-face, but, in light of Roe v. Wade, that if the RTL Act of SC were applied to the area of abortion, that it would be unconstitutional. In other words, in a snapshot of the confused, perverse state of American jurisprudence in the day in which we live, the "fetus" would be a legal "person" at fertilization for all purposes in law except if the mother wanted to have her baby killed by a paid murderer (abortionist). For some legislators, this has helped them get past the stumbling block of thinking (erroneously) that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and therefore the Right to Life Act of SC is unconstitutional, and so they had refused to support it. Some, by no means all, of the lawyer-legislators have stumbled over this issue. For them, they can apply the SC Attorney General's Opinion, and take the position that the bill on its face is constitutional, and if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned, that means that the very next moment after Roe is overturned, abortion becomes illegal (immediately) in the entire state of South Carolina, if the Right to Life Act of SC is passed by the SC House, the SC Senate, and signed by the Governor into law.

Up until March 30, the day before the SC Attorney General's Opinion was received, there were 41 co-sponsors of the bill. There are now 51 co-sponsors to H.3213.

7) In truth, the Roe v. Wade decision itself states that if legal "personhood" is established for the "fetus" that the pro-abortion argument "collapses," because the right to life of the "fetus" would be protected by the U.S. Constitution. As the SC Attorney General Opinion acknowledges, the Right to Life Act of SC would establish legal personhood at fertilization.

8) If you know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, please pray for all 124 members of the SC House of Representatives: (Proverb 21:1)

9) Also, I would invite Christians who are so led of the Lord, to consider fasting between now, Tuesday, April 12th, and whenever the bill is voted upon on the floor of the House (most likely Wednesday, April 13), crying out to God in repentance and tears for the Lord to tear down this demonic stronghold of child-murder-by-abortion in our state.

Jesus said there were some devils that "goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
Matthew 17:21

I have been fasting in different modes, and plan to continue. One may practice a normal fast (water only), or some variation as the Lord leads (perhaps juices in addition to water, or perhaps fasting 1 or 2 meals per day instead of all three). Whatever you do, do it in "faith" (Romans 14:23), as unto the Lord, and for His glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Hallelu-Yah !

April 12, 2005
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
CCL lobbyist
Columbia, SC




Contact information for pro-abortion SC House of Representatives member Thayer Rivers:

Representative R. Thayer Rivers, Jr.
District 122 - Beaufort, Hampton & Jasper Cos.
Contact Address:
(H) P.O. Box 104, Ridgeland, 29936
Bus. (843) 726-8136
Home (843) 726-3296
Fax (843) 726-4401
(C) 532D Blatt Bldg., Columbia, 29211
Bus. (803) 734-3073

E-Mail Address: rtr@scstatehouse.net

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...