Columbia Christians for Life
P.O. Box 50358, Columbia, S.C. 29250 * (803) 765-0916 * www.christianlifeandliberty.net
“… I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Matthew 16:18
To: Members (4) of Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee: May 1, 2005
1) Senator Jim Ritchie, chairman (R-Spartanburg)
2) Senator Luke Rankin (R-Myrtle Beach / Conway)
3) Senator Randy Scott (R-Summerville)
4) Senator Joel Lourie (D-Columbia)
Fr: Steve Lefemine
dir., Columbia Christians for Life / http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/ / http://www.righttolifeactofsc.net/
Subject: The “Right to Life Act of South Carolina” – H.3213 / S.111 (upcoming hearing May 4)
Re: The Purpose of the Right to Life Act of SC is to Vest Legal ‘Personhood’ at Fertilization to Pre-Birth Human Beings under the South Carolina State Constitution – without any so-called ‘EXCEPTIONS’ – which would ‘fatally flaw’ the entire bill in logic and law.
Request: Removal of the Rape EXCEPTION for so-called "morning-after-pill" abortifacient(chemical abortion causing) Amendment added at Second Reading in House, when H.3213 and S.111 is taken up by Senator Ritchie's Subcommittee of the Senate
Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, May 4, at 11 AM in Room 207, Gressette Bldg
Dear Gentlemen,
This letter will attempt to explain why the text of the Roe v. Wade decision itself, and the germaine footnote in the Roe v. Wade decision itself by (pro-abortion) Justice Harry Blackmun includes the following assertions in the Roe framework, as adjudicated and issued as the Supreme Court’s Opinion
on January 22, 1973:
Assertions in framework of Roe v. Wade decision:
1. Vesting legal "personhood" at fertilization unravels ("collapses" in the words of the Roe decision itself, see below) the pro-abortion argument, and;
2. Conversely, why any so-called "EXCEPTIONS" to legal "personhood" unravel the whole "personhood" argument, which is what happened to the state of Texas over 30 years ago when the State of Texas tried to argue for "personhood" and failed because of a "life-of-the-mother"exception in the Texas law challenged in Roe.
The original text of the "Right to Life Act of South Carolina" (H.3213 / S.111) states its purpose is:TO ENACT THE "RIGHT TO LIFE ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA" WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION VEST
AT FERTILIZATION…
Whereas, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895, guarantees that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied the equal protection of the laws;…
Section 1-1-320. The right to due process, whereby no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the right to equal protection of the laws, both of which rights are guaranteed by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of this State, vest at fertilization."
Yesterday in The State paper there was an article on the Right to Life Act of SC and the rape EXCEPTION so-called "morning-after-pill" abortifacient (chemical abortion causing) Amendment. This amendment ‘fatally flaws’ the bill, and makes it logically nonsensical and legally indefensible (just as the Texas law in the 1973 Roe case was determined to be logically nonsensical and legally indefensible, as is documented in the text and the germaine footnote of the Roe decision itself).
The amended House version of the bill must be corrected, or the bill must be killed. It will do more harm than good if passed with the fatally flawed, dead-end rape EXCEPTION amendment.
As even a well-known children's book series has said, A person's a person no matter how small. The whole concept of this bill is to establish legal "personhood" for all pre-birth human beings at fertilization - either a human being is a legal "person" at fertilization, or they are not. This is one time when there is no “middle ground” – choose where you will stand – on the side of “life” and the Lord of life, or against the sanctity of all innocent human life expressed in the Bible, the Declaration, and the Constitution.
An "exception" to legal “personhood” for some human beings makes no sense in logic or law.
This was the same mistake the State of Texas made with the law challenged in the 1973 Roe v Wade case. There was a life-of-the-mother" exception. Texas tried to make the "personhood" argument, but even pro-abort Justice Harry Blackmun saw the logical and legal inconsistency as Texas tried to argue for fetal personhood when there was an "exception." Blackmun said in a footnote recorded right in the text of the Roe v. Wade decision itself:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
From the Roe v. Wade decision:
“[ 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? ...”
[Footnote by Justice Blackmun]
[emphasis added]
So, in other words, the life-of-the-mother EXCEPTION in the Texas law appealed in what became the abominable 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, helped to undermine the case that the State of Texas tried to make for fetal personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment (note: it would be better to make the argument under the 5th Amendment), and helped open the blood-stained floodgates to over 45 million dead and counting... from surgical abortion alone.
The South Carolina Right to Life Act would suffer the same fate as the Texas law appealed in Roe, for having a rape EXCEPTION for the abortifacient (chemical abortion causing) so-called "morning-after-pill" that has a mechanism to prevent post-fertilization one-week old embryos from being able to properly implant in the mother's uterus, thereby causing a one-week old pre-birth human being, with its complete genetic blueprint determined at fertlization seven days earlier, to be sloughed off, and purged from the woman's body, thereby killing her week-old son or daughter. [Go to http://www.pfli.org/, the Pharmacist’s for Life International website for further information - www.pfli.org/begin108.html (article on morning-after-pill ]
The critical nature of maintaining the integrity of the vestment of legal "personhood' for all human beings, without EXCEPTION, is seen by the result which came when the State of Texas failed to make the case for legal "personhood" - i.e., the Supreme Court handed down the abominable Roe decision that has brought our country to the brink of destruction with the flood of innocent blood being shed and the accompanying divine judgment from God upon America (e.g., Numbers 35:33, Jeremiah 19:3-5, 2 Kings 24:1-4). The Bible says “…blood toucheth blood.” (Hosea 4:2), or bloodshed follows bloodshed. We sow, we reap.
As someone else has said, "The Supreme Court, in the Roe v. Wade Decision itself, provided a way to overturn their decision."
www.solport.com/roundtable/archives/000472.php
Again, this time in the main body of the text of the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court stated:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
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 [i.e., Norma McCorvey, the former “Jane Roe” who is now completely pro-life and who appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn her 30-plus years old case], of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.
[ emphasis added]
So, in other words, if the "Right to Life Act of South Carolina" is passed without any exceptions, it would accomplish what was missing in the Texas law that was challenged and became the Roe decision – the South Carolina Right to Life Act would define in law that all pre-birth human beings are legal "persons" at fertilization.
However, if there are any so-called "EXCEPTIONS" to legal "personhood" for any pre-birth human beings, then the South Carolina Right to Life Act would fall dead on its face. It would be internally self-contradictory, and therefore logically nonsensical and legal indefensible just as the Texas law challenged in Roe was over 30 years ago. I guess after 32 years of innocent bloodshed and over 45 million dead, we still have not yet learned the lesson of what is plainly written right in the text of the Roe v. Wade decision.
Gentlemen, I urge you, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Yahshua Messiah), that when you take up this bill this coming Wednesday, May 4th, that you please save this bill (which was conceived in late 1997, and first filed in February 1998 in both the SC House and the Senate), and remove the rape EXCEPTION "morning-after-pill" abortifacient (chemical abortion causing) amendment, restore the bill (H.3213) to its original, unamended condition, and pass the bill favorably out of Senator Ritchie's Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Declaration of Independence is part of the organic law of the United States of America (United States Code Annotated http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm (search “Declaration of Independence”). It is posted on the landing of the stairs between the First and Second State House floors on the SC House side.
I take pleasure in reading the words in the very first sentence, that the principal premise asserted by the founders as the basis for America to exist as a separate nation among the Powers of the Earth, was based upon “…the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God…” “Thou shalt not kill [murder]” is one of those “Laws of … God” (Ex. 20:13).
Gentlemen, you have a duty, So Help [you]God, to do your utmost to uphold the plain text of the Declaration of Independence, and the South Carolina and United States Constitutions, to preserve and protect the unalienable right to life. After the acknowledgment of God, it is your first duty as civil ministers. May the Lord be glorified in the process and outcome of the Subcommittee public hearing on May 4.
King Jesus is Lord of the ‘Gates’ (Matt. 16:18, Ps. 24:1,7-10, Ps. 110:1)
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
CCL lobbyist
http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/
wwww.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
cc:
Senator Mike Fair (R-Greenville)
Senator Kevin Bryant (R-Anderson)
Senator Larry Grooms (R-Berkeley-Charleston-Colleton-Dorchester)
Senator Wes Hayes (R-York)
Senator David Thomas (R-Greenville)
Senator Danny Verdin (R-Greenville-Laurens)
Rep. Ralph Davenport (R-Spartanburg)
Governor Mark Sanford (R)
Mr. Johnny Gardner, dir., Voice of the Unborn
Inclosures:
1. “Preven will increase, not lower, number of abortions,” by Lloyd J. DuPlantis, P.D., (past) president
Pharmacists For Life International (http://www.pfli.org/). Article explaining that “Morning-After-Pills”
are abortifacient, causing chemical abortions, can be found at: www.pfli.org/begin108.html
2. “Judge Rules Embryos ‘Human Beings,” (Feb. 5, 2005), can be found at CovenantNews.com at:
http://www.covenantnews.com//newswire/archives/009709.html
3. Two pages of excerpts from the United States Supreme Court decision ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) – one, addressing that if “personhood” for the “fetus” is established, the pro-abortion argument “collapses;” and the second page, addressing that in light of the “life of the mother” exception in the Texas law challenged in Roe, that the State of Texas argument for personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment was undermined.
4. Brochure: “When it comes to banning abortion… EXCEPTIONS BREAK THE RULE,” by Marie Dietz, published by American Life League, 1992 (reprinted 1996)
No comments:
Post a Comment