South Carolina is in the process of perfecting legislation they expect to adopt protecting babies from murder by abortion. Currently the following document has come out of the House Judiciary Subcommittee and will be debated by the full Judiciary Committee.
Here is the text with comments interspersed:
HOUSE AMENDMENT THIS AMENDMENT ADOPTED
CLERK OF THE HOUSE PROPOSES THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT NO. TO H. 5399:
REFERENCE IS TO THE BILL AS INTRODUCED
AMEND THE BILL, AS AND IF AMENDED, BY STRIKING ALL AFTER THE ENACTING WORDS AND
SECTION 1. This act may be cited and shall be known as the “South Carolina Human Life Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. The General Assembly hereby finds all of the following:
(1) All human beings are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, the foremost of which is the right to. life.
(2) Section 3, Article I 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 be denied the equal protection of the laws, and a preborn child is deserving of that protection.
(3) In the exercise of its constitutional duties and powers, the South Carolina General Assembly has a fundamental duty to provide equal protection for the life, health, and welfare of all persons, including preborn children from conception.
From “conception?” Surely those drafting this law know the medical establishment and media have long been lying about the meaning of this word. It started with the Pill back in the early sixties, and the lie has been promulgated by medical authorities and the media ever since. It seems hard to imagine those drafting this legislation aren’t aware of their own equivocations in their use of this word throughout this document. Reasonable men must conclude they made a conscious decision to aid and abet the lie of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—that conception does not occur with fertilization, but implantation.
(4) It is undisputed that the life of every human being begins at conception.
No, they lie. It is constantly disputed, and throughout this proposed legislation, they themselves dispute it, demonstrating again and again both indirectly and directly that they deny life begins until 11-15 days after conception, and thus the little one seeking to attach herself to her mother’s womb will enjoy no protection from their “anti-abortion” legislation.
(5) South Carolina maintains a fundamental interest in protecting the life of every human being from conception.
Bogus, as anyone half awake concerning how most preborn babies are murdered knows full well. A large percentage of the murders of unborn children are committed by drugs whose agency includes preventing the little one from attaching herself to her mother’s womb. Medical authorities deny this is properly defined as “abortion” because they deny the embryo is a living human being until she has been successful in attaching herself.
Thus, what this legislation is carefully not saying is that they will do nothing at all to defend the majority of children murdered in their state who die prior to their implantation. Those little ones don’t make their cut.
SECTION 3. Chapter 41, Title 44 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
South Carolina Human Life Protection Act
Section 44-41-810. For purposes of this article:
(1) “Abortion’ means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy
Pregnancy tests can’t indicate pregnancy earlier than 11-15 days after the embryo has become a living person through fertilization. So once again we see that those drafting this legislation are intentionally declining to protect the majority of preborn children murdered chemically in the first days of their lives. Specifically, the first 11-15 days of their lives. Preborn children are deserving of the state of South Carolina’s protection unless they are a week-and-a-half to two weeks old, and those week-and-a-half to two-week-old babies make up likely the majority of preborn babies who are killed each year in South Carolina.
of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn human being. Such use, prescription, or means is not an abortion if done with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of the preborn human being, or to remove a dead unborn human being.
(2) ‘Contraceptive’ means a drug, device, or chemical that prevents conception.
Once again, they carefully avoid defining “conception,” thus refusing to protect most of the little ones murdered in their state by abortion.
(3) ‘Female’ means a biological female as assigned at the time of birth or an intersexed person capable of producing an ovum at birth,
(4) ‘Physician’ means any person licensed to practice medicine and surgery, or osteopathic medicine and surgery, in this State.
(5) ‘Pregnant Woman’ means the human biological female reproductive condition of having a living unborn child within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth, whether or not she has reached the age of majority.
The drafters of this law define “pregnant” precisely here, yet keep in mind their consistent refusal to define “conception.” It’s worth noting that it is mothers who are pregnant whereas it is defenceless and voiceless babies who are seeking to attach themselves to their mothers’ wombs in the first days of their lives.
(6) ‘Reasonable medical judgment’ means a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.
(7) ‘Unborn human being’ or ‘unborn child’ or ‘preborn child’ or ‘preborn human being’ or ‘fetus’ each mean an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from conception until live birth.
Again, the careful avoidance of any definition of “conception.”
Section 44-41-820. (A) No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, procure for, pay for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting an abortion
But above they have defined “abortion” as only being committed after the first 11-15 days of pregnancy. Only then is the pregnancy “clinically diagnosable.” Once more the drafters of this South Carolina legislation are intentionally choosing not to adopt rules of law that will defend from murder the majority of little ones aborted during the first days of their lives.
(B) No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument, device, means, or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting an abortion.
Again, they only oppose abortions after the first 11-15 days of the preborn child’s life.
Section 44-41-830. (A) It is not a violation of Section 44-41-820 for a licensed physician to perform a medical procedure necessary in reasonable medical judgment to prevent:
(1) the death of the pregnant woman;
(2) a substantial risk of death for the pregnant woman because of a physical condition; or
(3) the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman, not including psychological or emotional conditions.
It is excellent for them explicitly to prohibit “psychological and emotional conditions.” Whether this will remain in the final form of this legislation may be doubtful, but it’s good they are trying.
However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve the life of her unborn child, to the extent it does not adversely affect the life or health of the pregnant woman, and in a manner consistent with reasonable medical practice. A medical procedure shall not be considered necessary if based on a claim or diagnosis that a woman will engage in conduct that she intends to result in her death or in a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.
(B) A physician who performs a medical procedure as described in subsection (A) shall declare, in a written document, that the medical procedure was necessary, by reasonable medical judgment, to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent the substantial risk of a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman, not including psychological or emotional conditions. In the document, the physician shall specify the pregnant woman’s medical condition that the medical procedure was asserted to address and the medical rationale for the physician’s conclusion that the medical procedure was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent the serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. Such documentation must be included in the woman’s medical records within thirty days from the date of the procedure. The physician’s determination is prima face evidence for a permitted abortion within the applicable standard of care.
(C) It is presumed that the following medical conditions constitute a substantial risk of death or substantial risk of a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of a pregnant woman: molar pregnancy, partial molar pregnancy, blighted ovum, ectopic pregnancy, severe preeclampsia, HELLP syndrome, abruption placentae, severe maternal trauma, uterine rupture, intrauterine fetal demise, and miscarriage. However, when an unborn child is alive in utero, the physician must make all reasonable efforts to deliver and save the life of an unborn child during the process of separating the unborn child from the pregnant woman, to the extent it does not adversely affect the life or health of the pregnant woman, and in a manner consistent with reasonable medical practice. The enumeration of the medical conditions in this subsection is not intended to exclude or abrogate other conditions that satisfy the exclusions of subsection (A) or prevent other procedures that are not included in the definition of abortion in Section 44-41-810.
(D) Medical treatment provided to the pregnant woman by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury to or the death of her unborn child is not a violation of Section 44-41-820.
(E) It is not a violation of Section 44-41-820, and nothing in this article may be construed to prohibit the use, sale, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug, chemical, or device if the contraceptive measure, drug, chemical, or device is used, sold, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions and is not used to cause or induce an abortion of a clinically diagnosable pregnancy.
Once again, the drafters demonstrate their clear intent to defend the use of hormonal abortifacients that kill the little children in their first 11-15 days of life. Trust Big Pharma. The hormonal abortifacients are to be used “in accordance with manufacturer instructions.”
(F) Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit in vitro fertilization or assisted reproductive technology procedures accepted as standard of care by the reproductive medical community.
This so-called “reproductive medical community” and its “standard of care” include doing experiments on, keeping for years (even decades) in cryo-preservation concentration cans, and throwing into the garbage millions of little babies conceived by the fertilization of their mother’s egg by their father’s sperm.
Consider the death toll over in the United Kingdom, keeping in mind the figures here in the United States would be much worse:
…the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HFEA), an organization in the United Kingdom that is responsible for regulating the practice of IVF throughout the UK, reported to Parliament that from August 1, 1991, to December 31, 2011, 3,546,818 embryos were created. Of these, 1,714,570 were “discarded,” i.e., thrown away like trash (whether because they died in the lab, or for reasons of quality, or for reasons of eugenics, the report does not say). Meanwhile, 5,876 embryos were frozen with the intent to give them to research (a sentence of death), while 841,396 were frozen for future use. Only 1,388,443 of the created embryos from this period were “transferred” to a womb, thus creating a pregnancy.79 For a nearly coterminous period—1991 to June 30, 2010— the HFEA reported that 101,605 embryos were given for research—again, a sentence of death.80 When we put the numbers together from these slightly diverging time periods of embryos discarded or given for research, the death toll for this twenty-year period comes to 1,816,175. (Abortion and the Church, p. 30)
The drafters of this legislation are vigilant in guarding this bloody industry that preys on, experiments on, imprisons for years and decades in concentration cans, and murders little children. All they ask is that this “reproductive medical community” follow its own “standard of care.”
No part of the in vitro fertilization procedures or assisted reproductive procedures considered normal standard of care will be considered an abortion procedure.
It’s the work of a moment to know how oppressive and bloody the in vitro business is. Just do a google search. Sadly though, South Carolina’s legislators toe the line, defending every aspect of this ghoulish industry as long as the oppression and bloodletting stay within what they themselves have declared “normal” and “standard of care.” They make their very good living off this industry, and then the civil authorities ask them to police their own ethics. This is reprehensible.
Notwithstanding the above, the practice of “selective reduction,” (defined as a procedure to stop the development of one or more fetuses in utero)
Note their prepositional phrase “in utero.” What the drafters of this legislation are saying here is that, under their new law, the little ones who have not been placed in their mother’s womb for implantation are explicitly precluded from any protection. They may be murdered at any time in any way for any reason so long as they are not “in utero.” This is the clearest statement proving when they speak of “conception,” they are lying. They mean implantation.
Again, if this legislation passes, only little ones who have successfully attached themselves to their mothers’ wombs will be defended by South Carolina’s civil authorities. They may be imprisoned on the concentration cans of their masters, kept enslaved there for the next thousand years with no voice or defense, and South Carolina’s civil authorities will do nothing to protect or free them.
shall constitute an abortion in violation of Section 4, above, except, when necessary, in reasonable medical judgment, to prevent a substantial risk of death for another fetus, or the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of another fetus.
Section 44-41-840. (A) A person who violates Section 44-41-820 is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined ten thousand dollars, imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
(B) Any person who uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person, for the purpose of coercing an abortion in violation of Section 44-41-820 is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined ten thousand dollars, imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
(C) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 44-41-830, any person who is not a physician licensed in this State, who prescribes any means of abortion as defined in this article, for the purpose of facilitating an abortion inside the borders of this State, violates Section 44-41-820, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined ten thousand dollars, imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Section 44-41-850. (A) In addition to whatever remedies are available under the common or statutory law of this State, failure to comply with the requirements of this article shall provide the basis for a civil action as described in this section.
(B) Any pregnant woman upon whom an abortion has been performed, induced, or coerced in violation of this article, the father of the unborn child who was the subject of such an abortion, or the maternal and paternal aunt, uncle, or grandparent of the unborn child may maintain an action against the person or persons who performed, induced, or coerced the abortion in intentional or reckless violation of this article for actual and punitive damages.
In addition to all other damages, and separate and distinct from all other damages, each plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages of ten thousand
(C) Any woman upon whom an abortion has been attempted in violation of this article also may maintain an action against the person who attempted to perform or induce the abortion in an intentional or reckless violation of this article for actual and punitive damages. In addition to all other damages, and separate and distinct from all other damages, each plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages of ten thousand dollars for each attempted abortion that each defendant performed or induced in violation of this article.
(D) A separate and distinct cause of action for injunctive relief against any person who has intentionally or recklessly violated this article may be maintained by:
(1) the woman upon whom an abortion was performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this article;
(2) the parent or guardian of the pregnant woman if the woman had not attained the age of eighteen years at the time of the abortion or has died as a result of the abortion;
(3) a solicitor or prosecuting attorney with proper jurisdiction; or
(4) the Attorney General.
The injunction prevents the person who has performed one or more illegal abortions from performing or inducing or attempting to perform or induce further abortions in violation of this article in this State.
(E) If judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff(s) in an action described in this section, the court also shall render judgment for reasonable costs and attorney’s fees in favor of the plaintiff(s) against the defendant(s).
(F) No damages, costs, or attorney’s fee may be assessed against the woman upon whom an abortion was performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced.
(G) In no case may civil damages be awarded to any plaintiff if the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff’s criminal
(H) A civil cause of action under this section must be brought within three years from the date of the abortion or attempted abortion and is not subject to the limitations and requirements of Chapter 79, Title 15.
Section 44-41-860. A pregnant woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of this article may not be criminally prosecuted for violating any of the provisions of this article or for attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or acting complicitly in committing a violation of any of the provisions of the article and is not subject to a civil or criminal penalty based on the abortion being performed or induced in violation of any of the provisions of this article.
This is misogyny. The man who refuses to call women to repentance for murdering their children hates those women.
Murdering the preborn child will be against the law. The state admits its duty to defend that child. The state will fine and imprison those who violate the law. The state will permit civil suits against those who violate the law. But right then, the the state also declares women who murder their babies may never be prosecuted or punished for shedding the blood of their own child.
As has often been observed, what feminism has really done in the past fifty years is systematically oppose any attempt to think or speak of, or treat women as moral agents.
What a tangled web these civil authorities weave. Write laws ostensibly intended to defend little babies against murder, then assure the mothers of those babies whose lives hang in the balance that the laws don’t apply to them murdering their own babies; that they can abort their own babies any time they want for any reason they want with absolutely no negative judgements or consequences.
Section 44-41-870. In addition to any other penalties imposed by law, a physician or any other professionally licensed person who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the prohibition in Section 44-41-820 commits an act of unprofessional conduct and the person’s license to practice in the State of South Carolina immediately shall be suspended and subsequently revoked by the State Board of Medical Examiners for South Carolina, after due process according to the rules and procedures of the State Board of Medical Examiners. A complaint may be originated by any person or sua sponte.
In addition, the State Board of Medical Examiners may assess costs of the investigation, fines, and other disciplinary actions it may deem appropriate.
Section 44-41-880. In every civil or criminal proceeding or action brought under this article, the court shall rule whether the anonymity of any woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced shall be preserved from public disclosure if the woman does not give her consent to such disclosure. The court, upon motion or sua sponte, shall make such a ruling and, upon determining that the woman’s anonymity should be preserved, shall issue orders to the parties, witnesses, and counsel and shall direct the sealing of the record and exclusion of individuals from courtrooms or hearing rooms to the extent necessary to safeguard her identity from public disclosure. Each such order shall be accompanied by specific written findings explaining why the anonymity of the woman should be preserved from public disclosure, why the order is essential to that end, how the order is narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and why no reasonable less restrictive alternative exists. In the absence of written consent of the woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced, anyone, other than a public official, who brings an action pursuant to Section 44-41-820 shall do so under a pseudonym. This section may not be construed to conceal the identity of the plaintiff or of witnesses from the defendant or from attorneys for the defendant.
It’s not enough to tell women they won’t be prosecuted for murdering their babies. Here they’re also to be protected from anyone knowing they murdered their babies. Efforts are to be made to keep the aborting mother anonymous even when someone she paid to kill her child is in court, being named and prosecuted.
Section 44-41-890. This article must not be construed to repeal, by implication or otherwise, Sections 44-41-630 through 650, 44-41-20 or any otherwise applicable provision of South Carolina law regulating or restricting abortion. An abortion that complies with this article but violates the provisions of Section 44-41-20 or any otherwise applicable provision of South Carolina law must be considered unlawful as provided in such provision. An abortion that complies with the provisions of Section 44-41-20 or any otherwise applicable provision of South Carolina law regulating or restricting abortion but violates this article must be considered unlawful as provided in this article. If some or all of the provisions of this article are ever temporarily or permanently restrained or enjoined by judicial order, all other provisions of South Carolina law regulating or restricting abortion must be enforced as though such restrained or enjoined provisions had not been adopted; provided, however, that whenever such temporary or permanent restraining order or injunction is stayed or dissolved, or otherwise ceases to have effect, such provisions shall have full force and effect.”
SECTION 4. The South Carolina House of Representatives, the South Carolina Senate, the South Carolina Governor and/or the South Carolina Attorney General may intervene as a matter of right in any case in which the constitutionality or enforceability of any SECTION of this act is challenged. The General Assembly may appoint one or more of its members to intervene as: a matter of right in any case in which the constitutionality or enforceability of any
SECTION of this act is challenged.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this act is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such holding shall not affect the constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this act, the General Assembly hereby declaring that it would have passed this act, and each and every section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words hereof may be declared to be unconstitutional, invalid, or otherwise ineffective.
SECTION 6. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
RENUMBER SECTIONS TO CONFORM.
AMEND TITLE TO CONFORM.
A couple thoughts:
Politics is the art of the possible. Yes, it’s likely the people of South Carolina aren’t willing to defend the majority of preborn little ones who die from the mother taking lethal chemicals, nor to prosecute their mothers who kill them, nor to forbid fathers and mothers from paying medical ghouls to store their babies in the freezer or toss them in the rubbish after one or two of their embryos have implanted themselves successfully.
Yet there are honest ways to avoid these issues and get some initial and weak anti-abortion laws passed without employing the equivocal language which permeates this prospective code. There are honest ways to say this is a compromise here, here, and here, and then argue this compromise is necessary given the decadent state of the electorate’s morals.
Truthfully, it’s shameful for any civil authority half awake about the nature of abortion today to use the word “conception” over and over again without ever admitting the simple truth that what he means by this term is absolutely not conception, but implantation. And thus, that most of the little ones being killed in his state will, under his proposed legislation, continue to be killed.
* * *
(For a helpful document on these and other aspects of the current abortion crisis, see Abortion and the Church, a document recently written and released by Evangel Presbytery.)