May 06, 2005

South Carolina state Senators begin hearing testimony on Right to Life Act of SC - S.111/H.3213

Bill already passed SC House, albeit with a 'fatal flaw' amendment

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee plans to schedule another public hearing to hearmore speakers from both sides, for and against the Right to Life Act of SC. Next Wednesday (May 11), Senator Ritchie's subcommittee has a hearing on S.590, a bill opposing stem cell research, so the soonest another public hearing for the Right to Life Act of SC (H.3213/S.111) could be scheduled, is Wednesday, May 18.

May 6, 2005
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
CCL lobbyist
Columbia, SC


The State
Columbia, SC

Posted on Thu, May. 05, 2005

Senators debate rights of embryos

by John Monk
News columnist

Opponents clashed Wednesday in the kickoff of the state Senate’s debate of one of this year’s most contentious topics ­ the rights of the unborn.

“These bills are not about abortion,” declared leadoff witness Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, testifying at a Senate hearing on bills that would bestow citizenship rights on a fertilized egg within minutes of conception.

[CCL note: Senator Mike Fair (R-Greenville) is the primary sponsor of S.111.]
[CCL note: should read: "... on human embryo at conception (fertilization)."]

“These bills are to clarify the fact that an unborn child is an unborn child and becomes such at fertilization,” Fair said at a Judiciary subcommittee meeting.

Minutes later, witness No. 2 ­ Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg ­ denounced Fair’s position. The bills are all about abortion, Hutto said, and will spark numerous lawsuits to protect just-conceived embryos. “That is the whole emphasis behind this bill.”

Over the next 40 minutes, witnesses served up clashing religious, medical and political viewpoints over whether to grant citizenship rights to just-conceived embryos. Under the bills, embryos could not be “deprived of life without due process of law.”

Kathryn Luchok, a health professor at the USC School of Public Health, said the bills would take the right to choose an abortion away from a woman and let a “third party” decide.

[CCL note: This article fails to mention that Dr. Luchok's name was listed on the Subcommittee sign-in sheet with a block of five women from Planned Parenthood, right after Dr. Renee Carter's name, with whom Dr. Luchok paired up with at thewitness table as Dr. Carter and Dr. Luchok testified side-by-side against the bill.]A sixth woman from the Planned Parenthood of South Carolina Board was also on the sign-up sheet,]

[CCL note: Here is a good illustration why taxpayer money should not be spent toaugment the budgets of universities like the University of South Carolina (USC), Clemson University, etc. - Christian pro-life taxpayers are being forced to fund the salaries of pro-abortion professors teaching young people in South Carolina !]

Luchok was grilled by Sen. Randy Scott, R-Dorchester, after she said pregnant women should have the right to choose an abortion.

“How about her husband and the child?” asked Scott, who wondered whether they had rights, too.

“I believe most women do consult with their partner,” Luchok said.

Abortion opponent Robert Hayes, director of the S.C. League of the South, told subcommittee members the male sperm and the female egg must not be aborted once they are joined. “South Carolina must protect innocent life,” he said.

Under questioning by Sen. Joel Lourie, D-Richland, Hayes also said South Carolina would be better off as an independent nation. Federal laws allowing abortion are unconstitutional, he said. (In a 1972 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court said a woman has a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion.)

[CCL note: The U.S. Supreme Court's unconstitutional, Oath-breaking, Covenant-breaking Roe v. Wade decision was issued in 1973.]

Another issue raised Wednesday is whether to bestow legal protections upon embryos for matters other than abortion.

Abortion opponent Holly Gatling said a pregnant woman can be beaten and miscarry, but if the unborn child is less than 24 weeks old, the assailant can’t be charged with the death.

[CCL note: There were three bills on the Senate Subcommittee's agenda: S.111 (original version of the RTL Act of SC, vesting legal "personhood" for all pre-birth human beings); H.3213 (RTL Act of SC passed by the S.C. House on April 14, now amended with the 'fatal flaw' rape EXCEPTION language), and S.479 (bill supported by S.C. Citizens for Life (the S.C. chapter of NRL) that recognizes fetal "personhood" in certain limited areas of law, but specifically not in the area of abortion; saying this S.C. Citizens for Life bill "does not apply to a mother's right to privacy" (her alleged 'right' to murder her child), "to a lawful procedure performed by a physician or other licensed medical professional at the request of the mother of an unborn child or the mother's legal guardian" (child-murder by surgical abortion to cut-up, pull apart, or saline poison the pre-born baby to death), "or to the lawful dispensation or administration oflawfully prescribed medication" (including the 'hard-core' abortifacient drug RU-486, or so-called "Morning-After-Pills" which are both abortifacient and contraceptive in their functionality, or other chemical abortion causing drugs, like Depo-Provera and Birth Control Pills (both are multi-functional).

At this Senate Judiciary Subcommittee public hearing, both H.3213 and S.111, the two versions of the Right to Life Act of SC, were on the agenda. The version of the Right to Life Act of SC without the rape exception amendment added before the vote on Second Reading in the SC House on April 13, had the support of at least these three orgainizations: Columbia Christians for Life, Voice of the Unborn, and the S.C. League of the South. H.3213 and S.111 can be seen on-line with links form the homepage of Updates and action items in support of the bill can be seen at

The Unborn Victim's Act, S.479, is supported by S.C. Citizens for Life (NRL chapter),and can be viewed at: ]

Under one bill considered Wednesday, an assailant could face criminal charges for causing the miscarriage of an unborn child younger than 24 weeks old.

Subcommittee chair Sen. Jim Ritchie, R-Spartanburg, cut short the hearing because senators had to go into session. He promised to hold another hearing.

At the next hearing, Lourie said he would like to hear from an impartial legal expert from the USC law school. “The expert could tell us about current South Carolina law and what the implications would be if these bills passed.”

Last month, a right-to-life bill breezed through the S.C. House.

Since then, thanks to a controversial amendment offered by bill opponent Rep. Thayer Rivers, D-Jasper, medical and some women’s rights advocates have questioned the proposal.

Rivers’ amendment, which the House approved, said a rape victim could take a morning-after pill to end or prevent a pregnancy.

[CCL note: "Morning-After-Pills," which are just high-doses of birth control chemicals, have three functioning mechanisms, two are contraceptive, one is chemically abortifacient, just like Birth Control Pills. See article on the subject at the Pharmacists For Life Int'l website at: ]

The amendment infuriates abortion opponents. They hold that all human life ­ even if the result of rape ­ is sacred.

[CCL note: The rape EXCEPTION amendment 'fatally flaws' the entire bill because it undermines the whole legal "personhood" concept / strategy uponwhich the bill is based. This is a primary reason why the Texas law challenged in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was overturned, because it too had an"EXCEPTION," which helped fatally undermine the legal argument that Texasattempted to make for fetal personhood. This is all documented in the text anda germaine Footnote of the Roe decision itself. See entire text of Roe decision on-line at: ]

However, medical groups said doctors should be able to prescribe morning-after pills, a legal drug, to all women, not just rape victims. Some women’s rights advocates have said incest victims or women whose lives are at risk from pregnancy could not have an abortion under the bills.

Dr. Renee Carter of Charleston testified Wednesday that if these bills are passed, a doctor performing an abortion to save a woman’s life might face murder charges. “That I could be charged with murder is inconceivable.”

[CCL note: How ironic that someone associated with Planned Parenthood (Murder, Inc.),finds it inconceivable she could be charged with murder.]

[CCL note: Again, this article fails to mention that Dr. Renee Carter's name ledthe list of a block of five women from Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthoodoperates the only remaining free-standing child-murder mill in Columbia, S.C.(the Lord has shut down four other abortuaries here since 1995), and last year reported murdering over 1,400 pre-birth human beings by surgical abortion alone in their death camp located in Middleburg Park, just off Forest Drive. Since 1978, PP in Columbia has likewise murdered over 25,000 individuals who have grown and matured WEEKS past what The State newspaper here calls "fertilized eggs."The Bible says in Hosea 4:1 that the Lord has a controversy with the rebellious, wicked people in the land in that day (like America today). One of God's indictments upon thispeople was, "... there is no truth,..." Think about that as you consider the statements of false witness given by various individuals in this article - no wonder in America that,"... blood toucheth blood." (Hosea 4:2), or bloodshed follows bloodshed. We sow,we reap. We sow bloodshed in the womb; we reap bloodshed in homes, on the streets, in workplaces, in churches, in schools, in the World Trade Towers.]

© 2005 The State and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...