SC Right to Life Act (Personhood) is Dead in House

I attended the Constitutional Laws subcommittee hearing on the state House version of the Personhood bill (H. 3526) in Columbia, S.C., today.

The subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Greg Delleney, will almost certainly not recommend the bill to the next stage.

I had hoped to speak in support of the bill, but the two members of the public who spoke took the entire hour, including the time they spent responding to questions and comments from the subcommittee. Several others also had hoped to speak. I was surprised there was no time limit which would have allowed more members of the public to have a say.

Rep. Delleney made it clear that he wants to save babies' lives, but he did not see a convincing case that the definition of the right to life beginning at fertilization would save a single life. He said he is pushing two bills that will save lives immediately (Born-Alive Protection and 24-Hour Waiting Period) and he isn't going to jepoardize these bills by also pushing the personhood bill, which he views as merely symbolic.

One speaker, Steve Lefemine, advanced a weak argument (the law is a schoolmaster, therefore this definition will lead people to value life more and abort less) to suggest the bill would save lives. The other speaker focused on the fact that the representatives would have to give account to God for the way they vote on this bill, so they must vote as they believe Jesus would.

Rep. Delleney is right that this bill would not save any babies at first, because it does not specifically address abortion. I see it as more than symbolism because it sets the principle forth so that a later abortion ban could be backed up by our state law. An abortion ban could be successful under only two scenarios: the Supreme Court upholds it (requiring a change in the composition of the Court); or South Carolina declares abortion law to be a power reserved to the states under the 10th amendment, and defies the federal government. Lefemine hinted at the latter possibility.

The possibility of a conservative shift on the Supreme Court prior to 2013 seems remote at best. And it is just as hard to imagine a scenario where a majority of state lawmakers and the governor would be willing to defy the federal government or Supreme Court--especially over abortion.

Of course Congress (if the makeup changes dramatically in November) could remove jurisdiction of abortion law from the Supreme Court, but that opens up constitutional issues we have not yet encountered. Again, having such a law signed into law before 2013 would be impossible.

I am disappointed in the subcommittee's decision, because the right to life should be declared to vest at fertilization, whether we can make meaningful policy changes yet or not. I hope to see the state senate go farther with their version (S. 450). (Rep. Delleney pledged to pass it through the state house if the senate passes it first.)

But regardless of the success of a personhood bill, abortion will remain legal for at least a few years. For now we must save as many lives as possible through prayer, education, intervention, pregnancy centers, sidewalk counseling, and legislative restrictions such as Delleney is currently fighting for.

#

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Personhood -- Back on the Table in SC

On Thursday morning, a S.C. House subcommittee is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the personhood legislation in our state, the Right to Life Act of South Carolina, H.3526. It states that legal personhood vests at fertilization.

We know that medically and scientifically, human life begins at fertilization. From that moment, this brand new life is genetically 100% human. It is time that our state and nation declared that we will protect all human life from fertilization on.

This legislation does not repeal the abortion laws of our state. It will not prevent a single abortion by itself. It does not put that principle in the context of abortion or any other specific area of law. It is more a statement of principle than policy. But as such it does lay the groundwork for an abortion ban at some later date that could stand up to scrutiny from the Supreme Court.

With this statement of principle in place, if enough state legislators get the courage to ban abortion outright, without exceptions based on the circumstances of conception, the ban could be upheld under portions of the reasoning of Roe vs. Wade.

While the Roe vs. Wade decision made up a right to privacy that included the right to abortion out of whole cloth, the justices made a valid point when they criticized the Texas abortion ban currently in place. You can't logically say that all human life is sacred and deserves protection--unless that life began with the crime of rape. Either human life is sacred or it isn't.

The Roe decision includes this statement: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment."

Of course the court decided that there was no clear definition of a child in the womb as a person under the law. The Right to Life Act currently under consideration provides just such a definition.

Recognizing the personhood of the unborn does not automatically satisfy Roe vs. Wade, however, as some believe. The decision went on to say: "[W]e do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."

They then make it a balancing act between the right to have an abortion, the state's interest in protecting the mother's health, and the state's interest in protecting what they call "potential life," which in our day is of course recognized scientifically as very real and existing human life. The Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision further affirmed a right to an abortion prior to "viability."

Roe vs. Wade is an evil and poorly reasoned decision, especially when it extends the right to privacy from government intrusion to include a right to kill a child in the womb.

The S.C. attorney general issued an opinion on this personhood bill indicating that it would probably be upheld as constitutional by the courts, however, it would be held to not apply to abortion, because (1) it doesn't specifically mention abortion, and (2) the courts would interpret it so as to make it conformable to the Roe vs. Wade and Casey decisions.

The personhood of the unborn should be declared, and it provides an important step in supporting a case to prohibit abortion, but it too is subject to judicial interpretation.

So after enacting personhood legislation, we can ban abortion and either wait for the courts to decide whether they will allow it, or we as a state stand up for our laws and assert that the state has the power to ban abortion reserved under the 10th Amendment (as a power not specifically given to the federal government).

The latter course would take courage on the part of our legislators--and probably our governor as well. And courage seems to be lacking among most politicians these days. It might also require some sacrifice on the part of the state's citizens, as federal funding for roads and education might be held back, but that sacrifice would be a very small price to pay in order to stop the killing of over 7,000 babies in South Carolina.

Personhood is a logical and necessary statement that flows from under the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”). This declaration of personhood also follows from the medical knowledge we have today of life before birth. It follows from the biblical statements about life in the womb. And it follows the constitutional guarantee against depriving anyone of life without due process of law.

This is only the first step down a road that our legislators must commit to with courage--or get out of the way and let real statesmen take their place.

#

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Florida Abortion Clinic Owner Kills Baby After Premature Birth

They're calling it a botched abortion. In reality the abortion had not really begun. The young mother, Sycloria Williams, went into labor at the abortion clinic before the abortion doctor arrived, and gave birth to her 23-week baby. That's when, according to Williams, one of the abortion clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez, murdered her baby. From the news story:

She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby's umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Is anyone really shocked? The result was the same as every other day at this abortion clinic--a dead baby went in the trash. That is what they do. The only difference is that Williams saw her baby alive outside the womb first. If Williams had been sedated, there would be no lawsuit, no news story. Just another day at the abortion clinic.

What is the moral or ethical difference between this murder and any other abortion? The only ethical difference anyone can argue is the mother's desire. In fact, depending on the wording of Florida law, that could be the only legal difference. Killing a baby (even in the womb) is illegal in many states, unless the mother wants to kill it by abortion.

Our laws place the life and death of one individual in the hands of another, and that is immoral.

As a side note, some pro-life people think laws to protect survivors of abortion are at best a waste of time. This case shows otherwise. The law would protect this infant's life, or if ignored, it provides a way to put the murderer, Belkis Gonzalez, behind bars.

--
Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Presidential Candidates and the Human Life Amendment

The American Family Association (AFA) has released it's Voter Guide for the 2008 Presidential Primary. The outcry must have been mighty, because the AFA rewrote it and released it again. The specific issues are designed to highlight differences in the positions of the GOP candidates.

The first edition, which only included the top 6 Republican candidates, gave the candidates' positions on the Human Life Amendment (HLA) as an indication of whether they were pro-life. Only Mike Huckabee supports the HLA.

The revised version includes 7 GOP candidates looks at two criteria: overturning Roe v. Wade and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. All the candidates except for Giuliani and McCain come down on the side of life on both issues. That's a change from earlier positions for Romney and Thompson.

While the first version of the Voters Guide could be misleading, as Huckabee appeared to be the only pro-life candidate, support for the Human Life Amendment is an important benchmark.

What is the pro-life strategy for ending abortion on demand in the US? In Phase 1, we work to restrict abortion as much as possible at all levels of government and to get judges who care about the original intent of the Constitution into office--especially on the Supreme Court. Then those judges overturn Roe vs. Wade by declaring restrictions that violate Roe to be constitutional. At that point abortion is still legal in nearly all states. The issue of abortion has been returned to the states, and some GOP candidates, such as Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, would stop federal involvement there.

In Phase 2, we work at both state and federal levels to restrict and ban abortion wherever possible, unhindered by Roe. Abortion will be banned with varying exceptions in many states, and still be legal in many others.

In Phase 3, we work to enact the Human Life Amendment to the Constitution to recognize the right to human life from the moment of fertilization.

Through all three phases, we must work to save individuals from the horror of abortion and to create a culture of life that views all human life as intrinsically valuable.

A constitutional amendment is not a federal intrusion into state authority--indeed most states must agree to it. So why is Mike Huckabee the only candidate of the top 6 GOP contenders to embrace the HLA?

If abortion is murder, why should we stop short of victory? On abortion there is no substitute for complete victory. While all Republican presidential candidates pledge to support good judges, I want a president who will lead as far as he can to the ultimate victory of life. I want a president who supports the Human Life Amendment. I realize the HLA won't happen for several more years, but I want a president who knows where we need to go, not one who is content to stop at Phase 1.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Disclaimer: Let Her Live does not endorse or oppose any political candidates, and political views expressed on this blog represent only the personal views of their authors.

Update on SC Ultrasound Bill

After the passage in the SC House of H3355, the bill requiring abortionists to review the ultrasound of the baby with the mother before an abortion, the state Senate amended it to make it almost meaningless.

Holly Gatling from SC Citizens for Life reports that State Senator David Thomas, R-Greenville, has proposed a compromise amendment to make the bill meaningful once again. According to Gatling, the amendment "would require abortionists to review and explain the ultrasound image to women before an abortion, but it would not require her to look at it."

1. The Thomas Amendment drops the House mandate on abortionists to perform ultrasound examinations before 14 weeks of pregnancy. (State regulations already require ultrasound at 14 weeks and recommend it at 12 weeks). The three licensed abortion facilities in South Carolina already do ultrasound as part of the abortion procedure so there is no need to require it by law.

2. If the abortionist performs an ultrasound, the Thomas Amendment keeps the duty on the abortionist to review the ultrasound information with the woman one hour before the abortion. Full disclosure by the abortion doctor is an essential element of informed consent if the pregnant woman is to make this decision intelligently.

3. The Thomas Amendment explicitly clarifies that the woman does not have to look at the ultrasound against her will. Neither the abortionist nor the woman can be penalized if the pregnant woman declines to look at the ultrasound. Although this is implied in both the House and Senate bills, it is not stated explicitly in either.

Please pray for the passage of the Thomas Amendment today. If you live in South Carolina, please contact your state senator today also.

To contact your State Senator go to http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/senatemembers.html. To find out who your legislators are, visit http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/zipcodesearch.exe.

Many thanks to Holly Gatling for her tireless work in Columbia.

What's Wrong with this Picture?

What’s wrong with this picture?

In my 13 years as a pro-life lobbyist, I have not witnessed an unprecedented attack on right-to-life legislation such as occurred last week. Eleven militant pro-abortion organizations spent tens of thousands of dollars on full-page newspaper ads all over South Carolina opposing the ultrasound law currently before the State Senate. It already passed the House by a vote of 91-23.

The Ultrasound Bill requires an abortionist or a qualified staffer to perform an ultrasound on a woman and review the image with the woman before the abortion. Ultrasound is the best, medically accurate, non-judgmental information a woman can have about her unborn child and her "choice." She has the legal right to know.

The big lie that the pro-aborts are spreading is that the legislation forces a woman to look at the ultrasound. Anyone who has read the bill even once knows this is not the case.

Pretend for a moment you are an abortionist who has to comply with the ultrasound law. How would you handle the situation to your advantage? You'd say, "Ms. Jones, I have the ultrasound image here showing the fetus is 12 weeks gestational age. I am required by law to review the image with you. You are not required to look at it. All you have to do is sign this Informed Consent statement verifying I have reviewed the ultrasound image with you."

If she says she want to see the image, she has the right to see it. She also has the right not to look. Chances are better than 80 percent that if she looks at the ultrasound, she will cancel the abortion and give birth.

South Carolina Citizens for Life and the National Right to Life Committee welcome this great public discussion of the humanity of the unborn child as seen in the ultrasound image. The abortion industry's militant opposition to the SC Ultrasound Bill is an indication the pro-aborts are terrified of any discussion of the humanity of the unborn child. When a pregnant woman chooses life, the abortionist loses money.

Back to the original question. What's wrong with the ultrasound picture? Nothing -- unless you are an abortionist who is afraid to give a woman the best available scientific, accurate, non-judgmental information on which she can make a truly informed decision about abortion or giving birth. The ultrasound image may be the only picture she will have of her child or it could happily be the first picture in the baby's scrapbook.

Holly Gatling, Executive Director
South Carolina Citizens for Life

Editor's Note: The S.C. Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee hearing the Ultasound Bill finished hearing testimony Wednesday. The subcommittee will meet again to vote on the bill. Please pray that the committee will approve it. If you live in South Carolina, please also contact your state senator and ask him or her to support the Ultrasound Bill, H3355/S84, as the state senate will need to vote on this bill.

All or Nothing Gets You Nothing

Many pro-life South Carolinians are aware of a group called Columbia Christians for Life (CCL) which spends the majority of its email messages attacking state and national pro-life organizations. Their email update on March 21 opposing the ultrasound legislation that passed the SC House 91-23 demands a response.

It [the ultrasound bill] may reduce abortions, but it will also prolong the practice of "legalized" ABORTION. In the 34-year battle to end abortion, it is yet another strategic and moral error, adopting the incrementalist approach to reducing the number of abortions, while distracting the pro-life community efforts and resources from the proper focus on ending abortion.

As even the well-meaning people of CCL acknowledge, this law will most likely reduce abortions, perhaps saving as many as 1000 or more lives per year. But they would rather build their campaign to completely end abortion on the bodies of those babies than save the ones they can while continuing to fight for a total ban.

CCL argues that Roe vs. Wade allows a total ban on abortions if the state recognizes babies as persons under the law. Obviously, the Supreme Court stands as the decider of all laws, as it has long ago usurped that role from the legislature. So the decision on that law, as the outcome of any challenge to Roe, will depend on the composition of the Court--at least until a state is willing to defy its unconstitutional authority--but that's another issue.

Some of the CCL literature indicates that the total abortion ban they desire would have no exception to save the life of the mother. While we may soon be able to surgically move ectopic fetuses to the uterus and save their lives, right now an ectopic baby will die. Condemning the mother to death as well is immoral and anti-life. Even if, in some rare instance, a choice must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, the baby's life has no greater moral value than the mother's.

In the nine years that a total ban has been pushed in SC, pro-life organizations and citizens have lobbied the legislature to pass laws that restrict abortion, cutting in approximately half the number of babies murdered annually.

Meanwhile the all-or-nothing crowd has achieved nothing. That's the problem with demanding all or nothing. You usually get nothing. As CCL recognizes, the danger of the incremental approach is that you forget your destination.

So let's stick with an all-or-something approach instead. We can continue winning incremental victories and saving babies every day, and one day we will win the full victory.