- ALA, GA, IND, KY, LA, MO, ND, OH, SC, SD, TENN (over 20% of States in U.S.)
Three categories of bills:
1. Principled pro-life bills banning all abortions and/or declaring bona fide legal "Personhood" at fertilization:
GA (HB 93), ND (House Bill No. 1227), OH (HB 228), SC (S.111)
[plus Senate Joint Resolution 43 in Missouri for proposed Missouri State Constitutional Amendment]
[plus Citizen Petition Drive in Michigan for proposed Michigan State Constitutional Amendment]
2. Bills banning all abortions minus the "life-of-the-mother" exception:
AL ( SB503), KY (HB489), LA (SB33), MO (SB 1248), SD (House Bill 1215), TENN (SB0334),
3. Bills banning all abortions minus cases of rape, incest and "life/health-of-the-mother" exceptions:
IND (House Bill 1096), SC (H.3213)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Principled pro-life bills banning all abortions and/or declaring legal "Personhood" at fertilization:
Georgia - HB 93: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/sum/hb93.htm
North Dakota - House Bill No. 1227: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/59-2005/bill-actions/ba1227.html
Ohio - HB 228: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_HB_228
South Carolina - S.111: http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/111.htm
Missouri - SJR43: Proposed Missouri State Constitutional Amendment - Senate Joint Resolution 43 to place proposed abortion ban Amendment on the ballot in November 2006: http://www.senate.mo.gov/06info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=165804
Michigan - Proposed Michigan State Constitutional Amendment - Citizen Petition Drive currently underway to place proposed "personhood" Amendment on the ballot in November 2006: http://www.michigancitizensforlife.net/petition_language.htm
2. Bills banning all abortions minus the "life-of-the-mother" exception:
Alabama - SB503: http://alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACASLogin.asp
Kentucky - HB489: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/RECORD/06RS/HB489.htm
Louisiana - SB33: http://legis.state.la.us/billdata/byinst.asp?sessionid=06RS&billid=SB33
Missouri - SB 1248: http://www.senate.mo.gov/06info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=165801
South Dakota - House Bill 1215: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/DisplayBill.aspx
Signed into law by South Dakota Governor March 21, 2006.
Tennessee - SB0334: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/
(declares "personhood" at fertilization, but then bill self-contradicts by allowing a "life-of-the-mother" exception)
3. Bills banning all abortions minus cases of rape, incest and "life/health-of-the-mother" exceptions:
Indiana - House Bill 1096: http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2006&session=1&request=getBill&docno=1096
South Carolina - H.3213: http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3213.htm
(declares "personhood" at fertilization, however fatal flaw amendment passed on the floor of the SC House caused bill to become self-contradictory, by allowing a rape exception)
_______________________________________
Excerpts from text of Roe v. Wade decision (1973):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
Legal "personhood" for the fetus is still the key issue, as it was in 1973.
Any "exceptions" to fetal personhood undermines the entire "personhood" concept,just as it did in 1973. See documentation in text of Roe v. Wade decison below:
In the very text of the Roe v. Wade US supreme Court decision it states,
“[Texas] argue[s] that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment… If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [pro-abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
In other words, there never would have been legalized abortion under Roe v. Wade. But tragically, Texas had an “exception” which undermined their entire “personhood” argument. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote:
“[ 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… 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? ...”
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
The key legal issue presented in the very text of Roe, necessary to unravel the entire Roe framework, is statutorily vesting legal “personhood” at fertilization for ALL human beings. This would satisfy the Roe formula published 33 years ago. The issue of legal “personhood” for ALL human beings, without exception, is a key to unlocking the 33 year old Roe v. Wade abortion enigma.
Either a "person" is a "person," or they are not. Either ALL pre-birth human beings are legal "persons" at fertilization, or they are not. There can be no "exceptions" to fetal "personhood."
_______________________________________
List of State bills compiled with assistance of Mrs. Angela Wittman.
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, South Carolina
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/ (click on 'RTL ACT of SC' button)
April 21, 2006
April 21, 2006
April 18, 2006
S.111 - Right to Life Act of SC
- The RTL Act of SC is a bill to recognize the legal 'Personhood' of all pre-birth human beings, at fertilization.
- This bill would ban all legalized child-murder-by-abortion, because the SC State Constitution, in Art. I., Sec. 3., already protects legal 'persons' from being deprived of life without due process of law, and the RTL Act of SC would inarguably place all pre-birth human beings in the same protected status.
- S.111 was introduced into the SC Senate and received a First Reading on January 11, 2005.
- After the House companion bill, H.3213, passed the South Carolina House of Representatives on April 14, 2005 (albeit with a fatal flaw rape exception amendment that needs to be removed, or the bill killed), it came over to the Senate, and was assigned to a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee.
- Two public hearings were conducted (May 4 and May 18, 2005) on S.111/H.3213 by this Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Jim Ritchie (R-Spartanburg), though no votes were taken.
- This Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Jim Ritchie (R), is comprised of three Republicans and one Democrat. None of the three Republicans (Senators Jim Ritchie, Randy Scott, or Luke Rankin) are co-sponsors of Senate bill S.111 !
- Furthermore, according to the rules of the SC Senate, the Republican chairman of the full Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Glenn McConnell (R), is also permitted to cast a vote on this bill. Senator McConnell is not a co-sponsor of S.111 either.
- No action has been taken in 2006 on S.111/H.3213 since the SC Legislature came back into session in January, over three months ago.
- There are now just over 40 days remaining in the 2005-2006 SC Legislative Session. If the Right to Life Act of SC does not pass by the first week in June, then the bill would be killed for this session, and would have to start over from the beginning in January 2007.
- See the text and history of the S.111 bill below, and online at:
www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/111.htm
- For history and updates on S.111 (and the House companion bill, H.3213), go to: http://www.righttolifeactofsc.net/ and http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/ (click on 'RTL Act of SC' button)
- For contact information of Senators McConnell, Ritchie, Scott, and Rankin, go to:
http://www.scstatehouse.net/ (click on “Addresses” and “Bios” for Senators), or go to:
Right to Life Act of SC - mail / fax State Senators lobbying memo Feb. 16, 2006
(www.christianlifeandliberty.net/H3213-S111-108.doc)
_________________________________
South Carolina General Assembly
116th Session, 2005-2006
S. 111
STATUS INFORMATION
General Bill
Sponsors: Senators Fair, Bryant, Grooms, Thomas, Verdin, Hayes and Ryberg
Companion/Similar bill(s): 3213
Introduced in the Senate on January 11, 2005
Currently residing in the Senate Committee on Judiciary
Summary: Right to Life Act of SC
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
------------------------------------------------------------------
12/15/2004 Senate Prefiled
12/15/2004 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary
1/11/2005 Senate Introduced and read first time SJ-138
1/11/2005 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary SJ-138
2/4/2005 Senate Referred to Subcommittee: Ritchie(ch), Rankin, Lourie, Scott
A BILL
TO AMEND TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5, SO AS 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, the General Assembly, under Article III, Section 1A of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895, is empowered to assemble to make new laws, as the common good may require; and
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; and
Whereas, the General Assembly in the exercise of its constitutional powers and in carrying out its duties and responsibilities under the law finds it necessary and proper to ensure that the rights of its citizens extend to each newly born and preborn human person. Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Title 1, Chapter 1 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Article 5 Right to Life
Section 1-1-310. This article may be cited as the 'Right to Life Act of South Carolina'.
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."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
----XX----
www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/111.htm
___________________________________
___________________________________
Senators, please pass the Right to Life Act of SC, with no "exceptions", now !!!
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, South Carolina
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/ (click on 'RTL ACT of SC' button)
April 18, 2006
- This bill would ban all legalized child-murder-by-abortion, because the SC State Constitution, in Art. I., Sec. 3., already protects legal 'persons' from being deprived of life without due process of law, and the RTL Act of SC would inarguably place all pre-birth human beings in the same protected status.
- S.111 was introduced into the SC Senate and received a First Reading on January 11, 2005.
- After the House companion bill, H.3213, passed the South Carolina House of Representatives on April 14, 2005 (albeit with a fatal flaw rape exception amendment that needs to be removed, or the bill killed), it came over to the Senate, and was assigned to a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee.
- Two public hearings were conducted (May 4 and May 18, 2005) on S.111/H.3213 by this Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Jim Ritchie (R-Spartanburg), though no votes were taken.
- This Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Jim Ritchie (R), is comprised of three Republicans and one Democrat. None of the three Republicans (Senators Jim Ritchie, Randy Scott, or Luke Rankin) are co-sponsors of Senate bill S.111 !
- Furthermore, according to the rules of the SC Senate, the Republican chairman of the full Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Glenn McConnell (R), is also permitted to cast a vote on this bill. Senator McConnell is not a co-sponsor of S.111 either.
- No action has been taken in 2006 on S.111/H.3213 since the SC Legislature came back into session in January, over three months ago.
- There are now just over 40 days remaining in the 2005-2006 SC Legislative Session. If the Right to Life Act of SC does not pass by the first week in June, then the bill would be killed for this session, and would have to start over from the beginning in January 2007.
- See the text and history of the S.111 bill below, and online at:
www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/111.htm
- For history and updates on S.111 (and the House companion bill, H.3213), go to: http://www.righttolifeactofsc.net/ and http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/ (click on 'RTL Act of SC' button)
- For contact information of Senators McConnell, Ritchie, Scott, and Rankin, go to:
http://www.scstatehouse.net/ (click on “Addresses” and “Bios” for Senators), or go to:
Right to Life Act of SC - mail / fax State Senators lobbying memo Feb. 16, 2006
(www.christianlifeandliberty.net/H3213-S111-108.doc)
_________________________________
South Carolina General Assembly
116th Session, 2005-2006
S. 111
STATUS INFORMATION
General Bill
Sponsors: Senators Fair, Bryant, Grooms, Thomas, Verdin, Hayes and Ryberg
Companion/Similar bill(s): 3213
Introduced in the Senate on January 11, 2005
Currently residing in the Senate Committee on Judiciary
Summary: Right to Life Act of SC
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
------------------------------------------------------------------
12/15/2004 Senate Prefiled
12/15/2004 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary
1/11/2005 Senate Introduced and read first time SJ-138
1/11/2005 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary SJ-138
2/4/2005 Senate Referred to Subcommittee: Ritchie(ch), Rankin, Lourie, Scott
A BILL
TO AMEND TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5, SO AS 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, the General Assembly, under Article III, Section 1A of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895, is empowered to assemble to make new laws, as the common good may require; and
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; and
Whereas, the General Assembly in the exercise of its constitutional powers and in carrying out its duties and responsibilities under the law finds it necessary and proper to ensure that the rights of its citizens extend to each newly born and preborn human person. Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Title 1, Chapter 1 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Article 5 Right to Life
Section 1-1-310. This article may be cited as the 'Right to Life Act of South Carolina'.
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."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
----XX----
www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/111.htm
___________________________________
___________________________________
Senators, please pass the Right to Life Act of SC, with no "exceptions", now !!!
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, South Carolina
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/ (click on 'RTL ACT of SC' button)
April 18, 2006
April 11, 2006
H.3213 - Right to Life Act of SC
- The RTL Act of SC is a bill to recognize the legal 'Personhood' of all pre-birth human beings, at fertilization.
- This bill would ban all legalized child-murder-by-abortion, because the SC State Constitution, in Art. I., Sec. 3., already protects legal 'persons' from being deprived of life without due process of law, and the RTL Act of SC would inarguably place all pre-birth human beings in the same protected status.
- H.3213 passed the South Carolina House of Representatives on April 14, 2005 (albeit with a fatal flaw rape exception amendment that needs to be removed, or the bill killed).
- H.3213 has sat in a South Carolina Senate Judiciary Subcommittee since April 26, 2005, for now almost one full year !!! - this subcommittee, chaired by Senator Jim Ritchie (R) is comprised of three Republicans and one Democrat - none of the three Republicans (Senators Jim Ritchie, Randy Scott, or Luke Rankin) are co-sponsors of the Senate companion bill (S.111) !
- Furthermore, according to the rules of the SC Senate, the Republican chairman of the full Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Glenn McConnell (R), is also permitted to cast a vote on this bill. Senator McConnell is not a co-sponsor of S.111 either.
- There are approximately 50 days remaining in the 2005-2006 SC Legislative Session. If the Right to Life Act of SC does not pass by the first week in June, then the bill would be killed for this session, and would have to start over from the beginning in January 2007.
- See the text and history of the bill below, and online at:
www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3213.htm
- For history and updates of H.3213 (and unamended Senate companion bill S.111),
go to: www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net and www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net (click on 'RTL ACT of SC' button)
- For contact information of Senators McConnell, Ritchie, Scott, and Rankin, go to:
www.scstatehouse.net (click on Addresses for Senators) or go to:
Right to Life Act of SC - mail / fax State Senators lobbying memo Feb. 16, 2006
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
South Carolina General Assembly
116th Session, 2005-2006
H. 3213
STATUS INFORMATION
General Bill
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, 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, Duncan, Hagood and Chellis
Companion/Similar bill(s): 111
Introduced in the House on January 11, 2005
Introduced in the Senate on April 18, 2005
Last Amended on April 13, 2005
Currently residing in the Senate Committee on Judiciary
Summary: Right to Life Act
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
12/22/2004 House Prefiled
12/22/2004 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary
1/11/2005 House Introduced and read first time HJ-133
1/11/2005 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary HJ-133
4/6/2005 House Committee report: Favorable Judiciary HJ-37
4/12/2005 House Requests for debate-Rep(s). Kennedy, JE Smith, Breeland, Miller, Hosey, Jennings, and Mack HJ-30
4/13/2005 House Requests for debate-Rep(s). Rice, Littlejohn, Skelton, Delleney, Davenport, and Talley 4/13/2005 House Amended HJ-49
4/13/2005 House Read second time HJ-55
4/13/2005 House Roll call Yeas-95 Nays-18 HJ-55
4/14/2005 House Read third time and sent to Senate HJ-39
4/14/2005 House Roll call Yeas-91 Nays-10 HJ-41
4/18/2005 Senate Introduced and read first time SJ-19
4/18/2005 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary SJ-19
4/26/2005 Senate Referred to Subcommittee: Ritchie (ch), Rankin, Lourie, Scott
VERSIONS OF THIS BILL
12/22/2004
4/6/2005
4/7/2005
4/13/2005
AMENDED
April 13, 2005
A BILL
TO AMEND TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5, SO AS 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.
Amend Title To Conform
Whereas, the General Assembly, under Article III, Section 1A of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895, is empowered to assemble to make new laws, as the common good may require; and
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; and
Whereas, the General Assembly in the exercise of its constitutional powers and in carrying out its duties and responsibilities under the law finds it necessary and proper to ensure that the rights of its citizens extend to each newly born and preborn human person. Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Title 1, Chapter 1 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Article 5
Right to Life
Section 1-1-310. This article may be cited as the 'Right to Life Act of South Carolina'.
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."
SECTION 2. The provisions of this act or any other provision of law do not prohibit the prescription of a morning after pill to a rape victim.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
----XX----
www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3213.htm
___________________________
___________________________
Senators, please pass the Right to Life Act of SC, with no "exceptions", now !!!
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, South Carolina
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net (click on 'RTL ACT of SC' button)
April 11, 2006
- This bill would ban all legalized child-murder-by-abortion, because the SC State Constitution, in Art. I., Sec. 3., already protects legal 'persons' from being deprived of life without due process of law, and the RTL Act of SC would inarguably place all pre-birth human beings in the same protected status.
- H.3213 passed the South Carolina House of Representatives on April 14, 2005 (albeit with a fatal flaw rape exception amendment that needs to be removed, or the bill killed).
- H.3213 has sat in a South Carolina Senate Judiciary Subcommittee since April 26, 2005, for now almost one full year !!! - this subcommittee, chaired by Senator Jim Ritchie (R) is comprised of three Republicans and one Democrat - none of the three Republicans (Senators Jim Ritchie, Randy Scott, or Luke Rankin) are co-sponsors of the Senate companion bill (S.111) !
- Furthermore, according to the rules of the SC Senate, the Republican chairman of the full Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Glenn McConnell (R), is also permitted to cast a vote on this bill. Senator McConnell is not a co-sponsor of S.111 either.
- There are approximately 50 days remaining in the 2005-2006 SC Legislative Session. If the Right to Life Act of SC does not pass by the first week in June, then the bill would be killed for this session, and would have to start over from the beginning in January 2007.
- See the text and history of the bill below, and online at:
www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3213.htm
- For history and updates of H.3213 (and unamended Senate companion bill S.111),
go to: www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net and www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net (click on 'RTL ACT of SC' button)
- For contact information of Senators McConnell, Ritchie, Scott, and Rankin, go to:
www.scstatehouse.net (click on Addresses for Senators) or go to:
Right to Life Act of SC - mail / fax State Senators lobbying memo Feb. 16, 2006
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
South Carolina General Assembly
116th Session, 2005-2006
H. 3213
STATUS INFORMATION
General Bill
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, 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, Duncan, Hagood and Chellis
Companion/Similar bill(s): 111
Introduced in the House on January 11, 2005
Introduced in the Senate on April 18, 2005
Last Amended on April 13, 2005
Currently residing in the Senate Committee on Judiciary
Summary: Right to Life Act
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
12/22/2004 House Prefiled
12/22/2004 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary
1/11/2005 House Introduced and read first time HJ-133
1/11/2005 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary HJ-133
4/6/2005 House Committee report: Favorable Judiciary HJ-37
4/12/2005 House Requests for debate-Rep(s). Kennedy, JE Smith, Breeland, Miller, Hosey, Jennings, and Mack HJ-30
4/13/2005 House Requests for debate-Rep(s). Rice, Littlejohn, Skelton, Delleney, Davenport, and Talley 4/13/2005 House Amended HJ-49
4/13/2005 House Read second time HJ-55
4/13/2005 House Roll call Yeas-95 Nays-18 HJ-55
4/14/2005 House Read third time and sent to Senate HJ-39
4/14/2005 House Roll call Yeas-91 Nays-10 HJ-41
4/18/2005 Senate Introduced and read first time SJ-19
4/18/2005 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary SJ-19
4/26/2005 Senate Referred to Subcommittee: Ritchie (ch), Rankin, Lourie, Scott
VERSIONS OF THIS BILL
12/22/2004
4/6/2005
4/7/2005
4/13/2005
AMENDED
April 13, 2005
A BILL
TO AMEND TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5, SO AS 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.
Amend Title To Conform
Whereas, the General Assembly, under Article III, Section 1A of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895, is empowered to assemble to make new laws, as the common good may require; and
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; and
Whereas, the General Assembly in the exercise of its constitutional powers and in carrying out its duties and responsibilities under the law finds it necessary and proper to ensure that the rights of its citizens extend to each newly born and preborn human person. Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Title 1, Chapter 1 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Article 5
Right to Life
Section 1-1-310. This article may be cited as the 'Right to Life Act of South Carolina'.
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."
SECTION 2. The provisions of this act or any other provision of law do not prohibit the prescription of a morning after pill to a rape victim.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
----XX----
www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3213.htm
___________________________
___________________________
Senators, please pass the Right to Life Act of SC, with no "exceptions", now !!!
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, South Carolina
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net (click on 'RTL ACT of SC' button)
April 11, 2006
April 04, 2006
Republican State Senators choose not to pass Right to Life Act of SC
“We (supporters of limits) basically got together and decided abortion wouldn’t be an issue this year,” Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, said of supporters of limiting abortion. “Had we known South Dakota would have done what they did, there would have been thoughtful consideration on testing the waters here, I assure you.”
The Right to Life Act of SC (H3213, sponsored by Rep. Davenport) passed the SC House last year on April 14, 2005 (albeit with a fatal flaw rape exception amendment). It now sits in a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee chaired by Senator Jim Ritchie (R-Spartanburg), along with Senator Mike Fair's unamended companion bill (S.111). Two hearings were conducted by Senator Ritchie last May 2005 on the Right to Life Act of SC. There are now about two months remaining in the 2006 SC Legislative session (adjourn first week in June).
So why are Senator Fair and Senator Ritchie not working to pass a bill in the two months remaining of the 2006 Legislative session that has already made it through the SC House (for the first time since it was first introduced in the SC House by Rep. Terry Haskins, and by Senator Mike Fair in the SC Senate, both in 1998) ?
Contact Senator Mike Fair and Senator Jim Ritchie (www.scstatehouse.net) and ask them not to wait until another 6,500 or so pre-birth human beings are murdered in South Carolina over the course of another year.
Murder is always an issue with God (Genesis 4:10, Exodus 20:13). And so is Justice (Genesis 9:6).
Senators, please pass the Right to Life Act of SC, with no "exceptions", now !!!
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, South Carolina
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net (click on 'RTL ACT of SC' button)
April 4, 2006
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
To: Columbia Christians for Life CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
From: Columbia Christians for Life CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
Subject: Abortion-ban fight looms in ’07
www.siliconvalley.com/mld/thestate/news/local/14134771.htm
Posted on Sun, Mar. 19, 2006
Abortion-ban fight looms in ’07
Measures similar to South Dakota’s to limit abortions here not a priority yet
By RODDIE BURRIS
rburris@thestate.com
Abortion opponents say it will be next year before S.C. lawmakers aim to crack down on the procedure in the Palmetto State.
Other Southern states, including Tennessee and Mississippi, have lined up to pass laws that all but ban abortions. Those moves come as South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation this month banning abortions except to save the life of the mother.
The Palmetto State hasn’t followed suit.
That’s because other issues are receiving legislators’ attention. This election-year session finds the state under a nettlesome court order to boost early childhood education and absorbed with a focus on delivering tax relief to property owners, among other items.
Couple that with a drop of more than 50 percent in the number of induced abortions since a 1988 peak, and abortion which some describe as the pre-eminent moral issue of the time sits on the back burner.
“We (supporters of limits) basically got together and decided abortion wouldn’t be an issue this year,” Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, said of supporters of limiting abortion. “Had we known South Dakota would have done what they did, there would have been thoughtful consideration on testing the waters here, I assure you.”
Next year, anti-abortion legislators may look to take broad steps. In addition to legislation that might arise from South Dakota’s move, lawmakers say they’ll look to establish the human rights for fetuses from the moment of fertilization.
This session, lawmakers appear to be content with smaller steps on the issues of “life.”
For example, one bill would allow criminal prosecution of a suspect if a child is harmed or killed in the uterus at any point of development. Some abortion rights advocates fear even such smaller steps would have large implications.
CHALLENGING ROE
Abortion opponents designed South Dakota’s new law specifically to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which recognizes that women have the right to end a pregnancy.
With the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito to the court, some abortion opponents say the time is right to challenge Roe.
South Dakota’s law allows an abortion only if the mother’s life is at stake, eliminating provisions for cases of rape and incest. Critics question whether the law is constitutional.
Roe overturned all state laws that either outlawed or restricted abortion. It is among the most contentious rulings ever.
South Carolina, considered a socially conservative state, generally has stuck to the guidelines of Roe. Abortions are permitted in the first and second trimesters. But in the third trimester, when fetal viability is presumed, abortion is legal only if the life of the mother is at stake. The state also imposes other restrictions, such as parental notification.
Still, the state does not have a so-called “trigger law,” as at least 15 other states do, to ban abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe.
S.C. ABORTIONS DOWN
Both abortion proponents and opponents both claim credit for the decline in abortions.
Statistics show the number of abortion procedures drops when anti-abortion legislation is introduced, said Lisa Van Riper, executive director of South Carolina Citizens for Life, a nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating abortion.
Planned Parenthood sees it differently.
Education improvements, more knowledge about safe and healthy sex, the development of emergency contraceptives and better family planning have led to the drop, said Christopher Hollis, vice president for Planned Parenthood Health Systems, covering North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia.
Some also suspect there are fewer abortions in South Carolina and elsewhere because of a dwindling number of convenient medical clinics. Planned Parenthood, for instance, now has a single S.C. clinic, in Columbia. In the past, it had several S.C. clinics.
S.C. FOCUS ON FETAL HOMICIDE BILL
While South Carolina largely watches the national debate, at least one bill won’t leave lawmakers on the sidelines.
The “Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2006,” sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, and in the House by Rep. Gloria Haskins, R-Greenville, is not an abortion bill per se but a fetal homicide bill.
But a coalition of abortion proponents is rallying against the proposal, calling it a back-door approach to limiting choice.
It would establish a separate punishment for a person who injures or kills a fetus as the result of a violent crime, just as the perpetrator would be punished for harming the mother. The bill passed the Senate this month and sits in the House Judiciary Committee.
The bill is fashioned after the 2004 federal statute known as “Laci and Conner’s Law” that was co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and signed into law by President Bush.
Laci Peterson, 28, was killed in 2002 by her husband, Scott Peterson, in California, when she was eight months pregnant. Convicted under California law, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder of his wife and second-degree murder of their unborn son, Conner.
About 20 states have similar fetal homicide laws that make it punishable to harm a fetus during development.
South Carolina is among a group of states that consider it a homicide to kill an unborn child after a certain period of gestation in this case, after what is called viability, or the end of the second trimester.
Haskins’ bill would give unborn victims “full coverage,” meaning the fetus would be protected from violent harm or death at all stages of development. The bill would exempt legal abortions.
“At first blush, it seems to protect pregnant women, and we certainly want to protect everyone from violence,” said Planned Parenthood’s Hollis.
But Haskins’ bill could produce an adversarial legal relationship between the mother and embryo, Hollis said.
Haskins disagrees. The bill confronts the fact that a fetus destroyed by violence to the mother has protections, she said, and it is not about abortion.
Still, some abortion rights proponents who supported the bill in the Senate now say they want the bill rewritten.
“Even though there is language in this bill pretending to protect women’s rights, the actual legislative intent of the Senate has been made public to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion,” said Bonnie K. Adams, executive director of New Morning Foundation, a group that works to decrease teen pregnancies in the state.
PLANS FOR 2007
South Dakota’s crackdown has all eyes focused on the Supreme Court, which is set to decide later this year on a “partial-birth” abortion ban in Nebraska.
Under the procedure, usually carried out later in a pregnancy, the fetus is removed partially from the womb, and the skull is broken or punctured. South Carolina bans the procedure.
As the national debate unfolds, the 2007 session of the General Assembly is likely to see a renewed push for the “Right to Life Act of South Carolina.”
Sponsored by Fair, the bill would give a fetus due process and equal protection rights at the moment of fertilization. Fair’s aim is to limit abortion rights.
“We’ve just sort of chipped away at the abortion law ... over the years,” Fair said.
A similar bill, sponsored by Rep. Guy Ralph Davenport, R-Spartanburg, passed the House in 2005 but stalled in the Senate. It’s not moving now.
State Attorney General Henry McMaster issued a legal opinion on the bill last year, concluding it is constitutional. McMaster wrote the bill does not mention abortion and could not be used to deny the “constitutional right to privacy” set forth in Roe v. Wade.
Van Riper, of the S.C. Center for Life, said two separate issues are under consideration.“How do we regard what is in the womb, and how do we treat it as a society, that’s one,” she said. “Then, are there any circumstances under which a woman may end that life without penalty?”
Abortion rights supporters are combating “unfounded fears,” over the preservation of life, Van Riper said.
“We’re not saying the sky is falling,” said Hollis of Planned Parenthood. “We’re just saying we are concerned about it.”
Reach Burris at (803) 771-8398.
© 2006 The State and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.thestate.com
The Right to Life Act of SC (H3213, sponsored by Rep. Davenport) passed the SC House last year on April 14, 2005 (albeit with a fatal flaw rape exception amendment). It now sits in a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee chaired by Senator Jim Ritchie (R-Spartanburg), along with Senator Mike Fair's unamended companion bill (S.111). Two hearings were conducted by Senator Ritchie last May 2005 on the Right to Life Act of SC. There are now about two months remaining in the 2006 SC Legislative session (adjourn first week in June).
So why are Senator Fair and Senator Ritchie not working to pass a bill in the two months remaining of the 2006 Legislative session that has already made it through the SC House (for the first time since it was first introduced in the SC House by Rep. Terry Haskins, and by Senator Mike Fair in the SC Senate, both in 1998) ?
Contact Senator Mike Fair and Senator Jim Ritchie (www.scstatehouse.net) and ask them not to wait until another 6,500 or so pre-birth human beings are murdered in South Carolina over the course of another year.
Murder is always an issue with God (Genesis 4:10, Exodus 20:13). And so is Justice (Genesis 9:6).
Senators, please pass the Right to Life Act of SC, with no "exceptions", now !!!
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, South Carolina
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net (click on 'RTL ACT of SC' button)
April 4, 2006
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
To: Columbia Christians for Life CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
From: Columbia Christians for Life CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
Subject: Abortion-ban fight looms in ’07
www.siliconvalley.com/mld/thestate/news/local/14134771.htm
Posted on Sun, Mar. 19, 2006
Abortion-ban fight looms in ’07
Measures similar to South Dakota’s to limit abortions here not a priority yet
By RODDIE BURRIS
rburris@thestate.com
Abortion opponents say it will be next year before S.C. lawmakers aim to crack down on the procedure in the Palmetto State.
Other Southern states, including Tennessee and Mississippi, have lined up to pass laws that all but ban abortions. Those moves come as South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation this month banning abortions except to save the life of the mother.
The Palmetto State hasn’t followed suit.
That’s because other issues are receiving legislators’ attention. This election-year session finds the state under a nettlesome court order to boost early childhood education and absorbed with a focus on delivering tax relief to property owners, among other items.
Couple that with a drop of more than 50 percent in the number of induced abortions since a 1988 peak, and abortion which some describe as the pre-eminent moral issue of the time sits on the back burner.
“We (supporters of limits) basically got together and decided abortion wouldn’t be an issue this year,” Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, said of supporters of limiting abortion. “Had we known South Dakota would have done what they did, there would have been thoughtful consideration on testing the waters here, I assure you.”
Next year, anti-abortion legislators may look to take broad steps. In addition to legislation that might arise from South Dakota’s move, lawmakers say they’ll look to establish the human rights for fetuses from the moment of fertilization.
This session, lawmakers appear to be content with smaller steps on the issues of “life.”
For example, one bill would allow criminal prosecution of a suspect if a child is harmed or killed in the uterus at any point of development. Some abortion rights advocates fear even such smaller steps would have large implications.
CHALLENGING ROE
Abortion opponents designed South Dakota’s new law specifically to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which recognizes that women have the right to end a pregnancy.
With the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito to the court, some abortion opponents say the time is right to challenge Roe.
South Dakota’s law allows an abortion only if the mother’s life is at stake, eliminating provisions for cases of rape and incest. Critics question whether the law is constitutional.
Roe overturned all state laws that either outlawed or restricted abortion. It is among the most contentious rulings ever.
South Carolina, considered a socially conservative state, generally has stuck to the guidelines of Roe. Abortions are permitted in the first and second trimesters. But in the third trimester, when fetal viability is presumed, abortion is legal only if the life of the mother is at stake. The state also imposes other restrictions, such as parental notification.
Still, the state does not have a so-called “trigger law,” as at least 15 other states do, to ban abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe.
S.C. ABORTIONS DOWN
Both abortion proponents and opponents both claim credit for the decline in abortions.
Statistics show the number of abortion procedures drops when anti-abortion legislation is introduced, said Lisa Van Riper, executive director of South Carolina Citizens for Life, a nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating abortion.
Planned Parenthood sees it differently.
Education improvements, more knowledge about safe and healthy sex, the development of emergency contraceptives and better family planning have led to the drop, said Christopher Hollis, vice president for Planned Parenthood Health Systems, covering North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia.
Some also suspect there are fewer abortions in South Carolina and elsewhere because of a dwindling number of convenient medical clinics. Planned Parenthood, for instance, now has a single S.C. clinic, in Columbia. In the past, it had several S.C. clinics.
S.C. FOCUS ON FETAL HOMICIDE BILL
While South Carolina largely watches the national debate, at least one bill won’t leave lawmakers on the sidelines.
The “Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2006,” sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, and in the House by Rep. Gloria Haskins, R-Greenville, is not an abortion bill per se but a fetal homicide bill.
But a coalition of abortion proponents is rallying against the proposal, calling it a back-door approach to limiting choice.
It would establish a separate punishment for a person who injures or kills a fetus as the result of a violent crime, just as the perpetrator would be punished for harming the mother. The bill passed the Senate this month and sits in the House Judiciary Committee.
The bill is fashioned after the 2004 federal statute known as “Laci and Conner’s Law” that was co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and signed into law by President Bush.
Laci Peterson, 28, was killed in 2002 by her husband, Scott Peterson, in California, when she was eight months pregnant. Convicted under California law, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder of his wife and second-degree murder of their unborn son, Conner.
About 20 states have similar fetal homicide laws that make it punishable to harm a fetus during development.
South Carolina is among a group of states that consider it a homicide to kill an unborn child after a certain period of gestation in this case, after what is called viability, or the end of the second trimester.
Haskins’ bill would give unborn victims “full coverage,” meaning the fetus would be protected from violent harm or death at all stages of development. The bill would exempt legal abortions.
“At first blush, it seems to protect pregnant women, and we certainly want to protect everyone from violence,” said Planned Parenthood’s Hollis.
But Haskins’ bill could produce an adversarial legal relationship between the mother and embryo, Hollis said.
Haskins disagrees. The bill confronts the fact that a fetus destroyed by violence to the mother has protections, she said, and it is not about abortion.
Still, some abortion rights proponents who supported the bill in the Senate now say they want the bill rewritten.
“Even though there is language in this bill pretending to protect women’s rights, the actual legislative intent of the Senate has been made public to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion,” said Bonnie K. Adams, executive director of New Morning Foundation, a group that works to decrease teen pregnancies in the state.
PLANS FOR 2007
South Dakota’s crackdown has all eyes focused on the Supreme Court, which is set to decide later this year on a “partial-birth” abortion ban in Nebraska.
Under the procedure, usually carried out later in a pregnancy, the fetus is removed partially from the womb, and the skull is broken or punctured. South Carolina bans the procedure.
As the national debate unfolds, the 2007 session of the General Assembly is likely to see a renewed push for the “Right to Life Act of South Carolina.”
Sponsored by Fair, the bill would give a fetus due process and equal protection rights at the moment of fertilization. Fair’s aim is to limit abortion rights.
“We’ve just sort of chipped away at the abortion law ... over the years,” Fair said.
A similar bill, sponsored by Rep. Guy Ralph Davenport, R-Spartanburg, passed the House in 2005 but stalled in the Senate. It’s not moving now.
State Attorney General Henry McMaster issued a legal opinion on the bill last year, concluding it is constitutional. McMaster wrote the bill does not mention abortion and could not be used to deny the “constitutional right to privacy” set forth in Roe v. Wade.
Van Riper, of the S.C. Center for Life, said two separate issues are under consideration.“How do we regard what is in the womb, and how do we treat it as a society, that’s one,” she said. “Then, are there any circumstances under which a woman may end that life without penalty?”
Abortion rights supporters are combating “unfounded fears,” over the preservation of life, Van Riper said.
“We’re not saying the sky is falling,” said Hollis of Planned Parenthood. “We’re just saying we are concerned about it.”
Reach Burris at (803) 771-8398.
© 2006 The State and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.thestate.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
