I've been chewing on this for two days now and want to share with you some observations and analysis about the “pro-life” movement in South Carolina. Actually much more than that, but related. I’ve titled this “Columbia and Pro-Life Rant." This is going to be long, but my hope and prayer is that the Christ claimers and I hope others among my readers will take the time to digest all of it. I believe this to be very important. If you don’t have time right now, then simply use a reminder to come back later. I’ll be including my prepared remarks for the legislature this past Wednesday at the end for those interested in what I wanted to tell them about the strongest truly pro-life bill ever introduced in South Carolina. If a long read on this is not for you, simply move on. That said, I am convinced there is meat here for everyone that considers themselves some kind of stakeholder.
This is going to educate some, satisfy some, dissatisfy some, irritate some, and probably anger some, but I hope after some introspection or “chewing of the cud” so to speak, you will be encouraged and better yet, exhorted to action, If not in South Carolina, then in your state where you live. My intent here really is not to slam anyone, but rather to give an honest assessment from where I see things regarding child sacrifice in South Carolina. Ok… maybe a few will deservedly be hammered. I will be tagging a quite a few people throughout or at the end of this epistle for several different reasons; I’m hoping they will understand why I’m tagging them. Mostly for situational awareness on shenanigans in the subcommittee hearing and the horrible testimony by long time “pro-lifers” that were pathetically unprepared or really don’t seem to want to put an end to child sacrifice in South Carolina.
Let me start off by saying I did not get off the bus last night, nor even last week during the day. I’ve been in the pro-life trenches in SC for a little over forty years. My wife and I both have been involved in various ways since we were married in 1984. We were in the very first meetings held for what would become the Lowcountry Pregnancy Center at its inception in 1986 and have been monthly financial supporters for all of those 40 years. I’ve written, spoken, taught, and on the subject for almost 30 years. I’m no stranger to the legislative process; I’ve been involved with the General Assembly here in South Carolina for at least 20 years in some capacity or the other. In 2012, I drafted my own legislation (2nd Amendment / dubbed "Restaurant Carry" by the NRA), worked with legislators to pass it, and was there to see it signed into law (2014) and incrementalist move that regained a ton of liberty before we could get to Constitutional Carry two years ago. S388, if you are a 2A advocate and protector, that was my bill. I’ve worked with many former and current legislators in both the House and the Senate to help them with Constitutional advice, write Constitutional arguments and papers, edit their writing, and have been on the receiving end of dozens if not hundreds of phone calls from legislators seeking counsel and advice, or just to bounce an idea off. Some of the legislators you see me tag here are just acquaintances, but many are friends. We don’t always agree (that’s a good thing) but we work together when we can towards common goals. It was [now United States Senator] Tim Scott who first asked me to help him as constitutional advisor and mentor when he first ran for Congress in SC-01 in 2010, I worked with my good friend Curtis Bostic as his senior campaign and Constitutional advisor when he ran for the SC-01 seat, and I helped Kathy Landing as a Constitutional advisor when she ran for Congress in SC-01 as well as others. I founded the one of the largest if not the largest grass roots organizations in the state of South Carolina in 2013. And lastly, I’ve served as a Regional Legislative Director for a nationwide organization managing a legislative effort in 12 states. I'm a homeschool dad to three wonderful, liberty loving grown young women who have now made me a joyous grandfather of five wonderful treasures in my retirement. To add to my joy, they are now homeschooling their children. And as most of you know, this is my 26th year teaching homeschool 10th, 11th, and 12th graders Constitutional Law from a biblical worldview. If you’ve stuck with me so far, I apologize for boring you with my “resume”, but I think it’s important to know the experience behind my thoughts and observations that I’m about to download, or perhaps after reading you may think I unloaded! I want them to carry weight because I want to spur everyone reading this to some sort of action. Now for the meat of this epistle.
Some definitions and explanation to begin. Incrementalism in legislation is the concept of trying to get something, anything done to advance the ball when it appears you don’t have enough support to get the whole thing done. This has been the philosophy for years in the pro-life movement in South Carolina. Not being able to do what we really need to do and I thought what we all wanted to do…and ban abortion / infanticide in South Carolina. The main organizations that have been working on this (what I am now going to refer to as “establishment”) are South Carolina Citizens for Life and Palmetto Family Council. Those two organizations in South Carolina have been at the tip of the spear of the incrementalist movement. The other movement is the abolition movement. This movement’s goal is to pursue legislation that completely abolishes abortion in one swoop. That may be simplistic, but that is the idea. I have always been supportive of legislation in both camps and have supported the long pass and the short run legislation. One would think that those in the “incrementalist” camp also seek this same goal but simply believe it cannot be done and want to expend their energy moving the ball down the field rather than throwing the hail Mary on every down. I can tell you with absolute certainty that I’ve been one of those wanting to do anything to move the ball but always longing for and looking for complete abolition of the wicked practice of child sacrifice. Obviously, I’m speaking in generalities because there are exceptions in each camp so to speak, but for the most part the incrementalist camp has opposed any and every attempt to abolish abortion. That has become crystal clear, but never more so for me since I saw it with my own eyes on Wednesday of this week. Keep reading and you will understand.
South Carolina Senator Richard J Cash has been attempting to move a bill identifying the unborn as persons and thus deserving of Constitutional protections for years. With little to no support from the establishment groups in South Carolina. He was able to get his bill in front of a Senate subcommittee last month, only to be left holding the bag by weak and pathetic supposedly “pro-life” colleagues that had feigned support. As a matter of fact the establishment groups have lobbied against his bills. No one, bar none, has been more of a champion for the unborn in the General Assembly than my friend Richard Cash. Over on the House side, Rep. Rob Harris introduced an abolition bill two years ago, only to be thwarted by these groups. At that time, he only had a couple co-sponsors. The bill never saw the light of day. The opposition from pro-aborts and yes, even the establishment pro-life groups mentioned above advanced the false narrative that the bill would force the death penalty upon women who have abortions whom they refer to as victims. That is easy to use to discredit the effort, but it simply is not true. The simple mention of that is used to frighten citizens and weak ignorant legislators to lazy to read the bill. Some say it out of ignorance, some just flat out lie. There are some victims, statistics and common sense tell us that most are not victims. I won’t go into this more here, because if you stick with me, you will see my prepared remarks for Wednesday’s testimony at the end that will completely undress these lies and mischaracterizations designed to freak people out. This brings us to this past Wednesday, when Rep. Harris was given a chance to re-introduce his Personhood and Equal Protection Act for the unborn, or so we thought.
For all the time I’ve been in the pro-life trenches, most of that time what I’d consider the front lines, I’ve longed for the complete abolition of child sacrifice in America, because that is the responsibility that God has given me geographically (see Acts 17:26). I must admit that for most of those years in the pro-life trenches, I have been part of the incrementalist movement. The notion that we move the legislative football down the field as much as we can with what we can, when we can. I’m not ruling out incrementalism in some situations, (not pertaining to child sacrifice), it can and is at times a prudent legislative strategy. Take what you can and come back to fight another day with reinforcements. My thrust in what follows is more of a commentary on the state of what I said I now refer to as the “establishment” "pro-life” movement. The organizations that have been at this for decades and refuse to support efforts that would attempt to move the ball much further toward the goalposts if not into the end zone.
At this point I want to mention someone that some of you will not know, some of you do know, and some of you reading this hate (perhaps hate is too strong a word, he can confirm or deny). I give great credit to man named Matt Brock for his steadfast and immovable position on abolition. Love him or hate him, this former marine has shown his mettle and earned his stripes in this fight. Matt can sometimes be a sledgehammer, but I’ve also watched him grow from afar and truth be told, I see a younger Bob Menges in him with that sledgehammer. In my younger years, I would’ve been most certainly called a sledgehammer. I used to swing that thing like Thor. My wife Patti will tell you that although the sledgehammer still sits in the corner of our house, the Lord has done a lot of work in me to be much more judicious with its use. Some of you probably still think the sledgehammer is there and shows its face at times and perhaps even in this writing, it’s going to rear its head, if so, I hope and pray it is righteously wielded.
Yesterday, I traveled to the Statehouse to attend a hearing in the South Carolina House Judiciary Sub-committee on Constitutional law where two “abortion bills” were supposed to be heard and given time. H 3537, Personhood and Equal Protection Act for the unborn and 4760, a weakly written ban on two abortifacient drugs. You can legally navigate a Mack truck through several provisions of 4760, and it will do little to nothing other than provide a checked off box for some Rs needing a pro-life soundbite / statement for their next election constituent mailer.
I think it's accurate to say that I’m not a person that has ever in my life sat on the bench but with a few exceptions, perhaps the one year I tried to play high school varsity football. 
I most certainly "rode the pine" as we used to say... on the bench. But I think it would be accurate to say that from that point on in my life, at least my 20 years on active duty, my 25 plus years in my private sector career, my activities and passions, my cultural engagement, and most importantly what I consider my work for the Lord, I would like to think I have not sat on the bench. I’m ready to stand corrected for blind spots where I've fallen short. In the rift between the establishment, pro-life movement and the clearly strengthening, abolitionist and equal protection movement, I believe I’ve been a part of both camps. Trying to find ways to work together. Like I said I’ve always sought abolition and as long as I’ve been teaching constitutional law, I have advocated for equal protection for the unborn. That said, I have admittedly been somewhat vocally sitting on the bench on the abolitionist / equal protection side fight, anxiously, but probably sitting rather than being very active and vocal which is what I'm known for in any battle with evil today.
I most certainly "rode the pine" as we used to say... on the bench. But I think it would be accurate to say that from that point on in my life, at least my 20 years on active duty, my 25 plus years in my private sector career, my activities and passions, my cultural engagement, and most importantly what I consider my work for the Lord, I would like to think I have not sat on the bench. I’m ready to stand corrected for blind spots where I've fallen short. In the rift between the establishment, pro-life movement and the clearly strengthening, abolitionist and equal protection movement, I believe I’ve been a part of both camps. Trying to find ways to work together. Like I said I’ve always sought abolition and as long as I’ve been teaching constitutional law, I have advocated for equal protection for the unborn. That said, I have admittedly been somewhat vocally sitting on the bench on the abolitionist / equal protection side fight, anxiously, but probably sitting rather than being very active and vocal which is what I'm known for in any battle with evil today.Wednesday, I climbed up off the "abolitionist bench" and went to Columbia prepared to testify in favor of the personhood and equal protection act in South Carolina, H 3537. I spent three hours researching and preparing relevant testimony dealing with two issues surrounding the Equal Protection Act bill; “death penalty” mischaracterizations and the relevant provisions of the bill and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I’ve been teaching a 32-week Constitutional Law course from a biblical worldview to homeschool high schoolers for 26 years, and God providentially ordained some wonderful timing for me in the last few weeks for this effort. It just happens that in my course week 16 & 17 I’m teaching in depth on the 14th amendment, including the Equal Protection clause. So it was very fresh in my mind. SCOTUS was also hearing the “men in women’s sports” case where the Equal Protection clause was one of the questions/issues before the court. Our class has been interesting and excellent due to current events both at SCOTUS and in our statehouse.
Because of my experience in the legislature, I know to make sure I know who is on the committee that I’ll be speaking to. I "know" most of those members (meaning I watch them and listen to them on the floor), so you prepare based on what you know you will likely need to discuss and who you’re talking to. I was ready for just about anything from those five, but especially from the leftists on the sub-committee (Justin Bamberg and Spencer Wetmore). For those of you still reading and not familiar with the legislature or it’s processes, I want to first give you some background. The Republicans in the 124 member South Carolina House of Representatives hold an 88-36 advantage (I might be off by onsey twosies). Suffice it to say, that is a supermajority of overwhelming size, assuming there were real conservatives (and there is such a thing for those rolling their eyes right now) wanting to wield that power for constitutional, limited government, and liberty purposes. Of course those are “claimed” Rs, they are not all conservative, limited government and liberty promoting types, frankly, some are just Democrats dressed in Republican drag. But the fact remains, they hold a pretty strong majority. If they wanted to get something done, they most certainly can easily overcome those 36 [honest] Democrats. Bills are always assigned to an appropriate sub-committee. A bill must clear the sub and then the full committee for it to every see the light of day for full House debate on the floor.
Let’s move on and talk about how things work with committees. Because there was a large crowd for a couple of hot button issues Wednesday, let’s just say that there was a heavy security presence on the campus of the statehouse and the folks that do security there were herding people outside to go in, which was understandable after I saw the circus for the “bathroom” bill, but that’s another issue. Anyway, the usual process is that when you go to a hearing, the clerk puts out sign-up sheets with the with bill numbers you want to speak either for or against. Citizens are permitted to have their voices heard on any piece of legislation. Some of those opinions are nothing more than bloviating. Some of those opinions can be expert opinions, and anybody can show up. But the point is you sign up and then they typically call you in the order that you have signed up. Well, they didn’t do that yesterday. They made the rest of us stand outside in the cold and the leaders of the “establishment” pro-life who I will now define for you, South Carolina Citizens for Life, the largest pro-life organization in the state and the Palmetto Family Council…and even the leaders of the opposition. Namely the Planned Parenthood whack job and [defeated] former State “sister” Senator Penny Gustafson (defeated after opposing the fetal heartbeat bill). They were not made to stand out in the cold with the plebes. They got to stay inside in the warm and then the panel totally ignored the sign-up list and called up those people that were perceived to be leaders. So those of us that drove hours across the state to be there early so that we could be at the front of the room and first in to sign up to speak in the limited hearing time, were totally and completely ignored. It was obvious to me right away based on passed experience, what was underway. The committee had already determined to move their weak do-nothing bill and simply throw Rob Harris a bone for his H3537 Equal Protection Act.
The fix was in. Run out the clock and vote 4760 on to full judiciary. The chairman of the committee, during his opening remarks discussed decorum in the room. He asked those in the room to remain “orderly and respectful”, he noted that he “wanted to get in as many speakers as possible”, and that he was going to “follow the sign-up sheets”…lastly he asked speakers to limit their time to 3 minutes so that many in the jam-packed room could speak in the allotted two hours for hearing both bills. Chairman Jay Jordan did absolutely none of those things. Not even from the decorum side. You’ll see that in a few minutes here. First up was former House member Garry Smith, whom I consider a legislator friend, who served honorably for many years. Garry spoke for well over 7 minutes and then was followed by questions from committee member, leftist Rep. Justin Bamberg for another 15 minutes. Total time expended for one speaker, not even on the list was over 22 minutes. I get it, offering deference to former colleagues and House members, but in a hearing where time is of the absolute essence, and many are signed up to speak, AND you just told the room that you were going to follow the sign-up sheets. Time should have been curtailed.
To make matters far worse, the pathetic leftist Rep. Justin Bamberg proceeded to expend 15 minutes using Viagra and other ED drugs to argue equivalence. He did this using phrases like “men that can’t get hard”, and “their meat don’t work” (see time stamp in video linked below 15:00 and on). Not a peep from the Chairman who had just told the room he wanted the hearing to remain “respectful.” I must assume that the Chairman of the committee who told us that he wanted to be “orderly and respectful” determined that what was good for the visitors was not applicable to his committee members. Keep in mind that these hearings are carried live on SCETV. Among the listeners many times, especially when I’m planning on being there and presenting constitutional information, my grandkids are watching with their mom who is home educating them on civics. So, she’s got to now explain what the pathetic Rep. Bamberg thinks are cute and hip phrases on “hard” and “meat” to my 11- and 8-year-old grandtreasures. The jerk Rep. Bamberg is running for Governor and was playing to his leftist audience in the room wearing their vagina hats (they use another word) and online. He should have been shut down immediately and reprimanded for his lack of “decorum”. But there was not a mention or a peep about this from any of the other members much less the Chairman. How pathetic. Do any of my legislator friends care about this? Yea, I know your not on the committee, but I know full well that you see this from this jerk on the House floor all the time. I’ve seen and heard him, so I know you have. How about Speaker Murrell Smith? Murrell, we’ve met on several occasions, is this ok? Yes, I know some of you below are going to say, "that's just Justin Bamberg", no...my friends, that is not an excuse. You guys have by far enough power in the majority to rein him and and even shut him down when needed. There is no honor, deference, or decorum in letting him do what he does day in and day out. Stand up, get on record, and call this jerk out.
Lastly, before I close…I want to switch gears and speak to the horrible job that was done by the establishment so called “leaders” in the pro-life movement in South Carolina. Namely South Carolina Citizens for Life and Palmetto Family Council. I am going to be painfully blunt. SCCL Executive Director Holly Gatling was one of the speakers that was privileged to jump the line, first, she did not appear to know the number of the bill she was up to defend…she then referred to the unborn child as a “fetus.” Friends, that is the term used by the pro-aborts. People advocating for the unborn refer to the “child”. I was flabbergasted at her comments and lack of understanding of the pro-life argument after serving in her position for 32 years. Just a slip up? No, not hardly, we expect people that are going to testify for the unborn before the legislature to be prepared and ready to go. She’s simply been treated like a patriarch of the movement for so long no one wants to tell her it’s time to hang up the cleats. Then came SCCL President Lisa Van Riper, Van Riper proceeded to make an argument, that to be honest sounded more like an argument from the pro-abort side. She even lectured the men in the room on the fact that we could not understand a pelvic exam. Sound familiar? For those of you paying attention is should. Yes, that’s a tactic of the pro-abort side. Unreal. Think I’m trying to be mean and attack them? Not even close…I have deferred to these leaders of these organizations for years, giving them the benefit of the doubt. I now confess, I’ve given them the benefit of the doubt for far too long. If you think that was just my opinion of Van Ripers presentation, then try this on. My wife Patti…she is not tuned into the names of the people in these organizations like I am. She doesn’t know their names and would not recognize them if she saw them. She had trouble getting the live feed video from home on Wednesday, so she could not see who was up, she was only listening to the live audio feed. So we were texting back and forth. During Van Ripers presentation, Patti texts me to ask a question about the speaker….she thought that the speaker was one of the opposition speakers without me saying anything to her. I had to tell her no, this woman was supposed to be a leader on “our side.”
Let me not forget to give mention of Dr. Steve Petit, President of Palmetto Family Council in South Carolina. Palmetto Family Council is a Christian organization begun by the late Dr. James Dobson. Dr. Petit came to the lectern and delivered his presentation. Again, I began to scratch my head. Throughout his testimony he must have used examples from Jewish Rabbi’s, and principles from the Talmud at least three if not four times, pretty much throughout his entire testimony. While there is nothing wrong with this, it was weird from a President of a Christian organization who never quoted any biblical scripture. But to prove my point, it only took time for him to finish before the other godless leftist on the committee (Rep. Wetmore) ate his lunch. She proceeded to take him to task…asked him to clarify if he was from a Christian organization and that he was not representing the Jewish faith community. Staggering. A non-believer basically had to ask a Christian leader to clarify who he was representing, Christ or the Talmud. Mind blowing. Then Rep. Bamberg totally took him apart with misapplied Christian principle by comparing the death penalty to abortion. One would assume anyone leading an organization like Palmetto Family Council would have the basics of Christian apologetics down. Not hardly. He was totally unprepared for this common line of attack against the pro-life argument. Now this might be something that stumps the average Joe or even the average Christ claimer, but this is a standard issue brought up by the pro-aborts. This was a softball that should have been crushed out of the statehouse with a deafening roar. But no, total whiff on the softball in the wheelhouse. Sad. Lastly Dr. Petit felt the need to undermine the stronger H 3537 Equal Protection Act with the same old tired and biblically errant “victim” argument. Why not just leave it alone if you disagree? Why try and undermine it? It was clear as day to me yesterday, they really don’t want to end it. It's time for real "Pro-Lifers to remove all support from these groups that make it clear in their leadership that they truly do not want to end child sacrifice in South Carolina. They really do not. Their rank and file supporters do, but it is crystal clear now that the leadership does not. This doesn't even get into the fact that their arguments in support of even the weak "pill bill" were utterly impotent if not counterproductive. I'll leave off on the subject of these leaders with this, I'm going to be 66 this year so I'm no spring chicken...but with the exception of Steve Petit, the other two from SCCL have been there for decades in their positions. Those organizations need solid younger believers that are trained in apologetics. These two clearly are not. They stand in front of committees like this, they stand in front of cameras, and their arguments are weak. Very weak. There are tremendous resources today for believers to sharpen their skill to present cogent arguments based both on scripture but also on reasoning for the non believer. I don't know what's in their hearts, but by appearance, they are there simply to hold the title and stand out front. Time to retire.
I’ll finally wrap this up with this…in the interest of calling balls and strikes. The last speaker was Bradley Pierce, a strong speaker and constitutionalist from the Foundation to Abolish Abortion. He did a fine job of making the biblical argument, where Dr. Petit left a vacuum. I was intentional about speaking to him afterward and encouraging him. However, we must call balls and strikes. When Rep. Bamberg had his chance, he (Bamberg) began with this, “do we have something called “separation of church and state”, you talk a lot about the constitution, I do constitutional law, so let’s talk the separation of church and state, is that a concept that exists in the United States”? I have to admit, not gonna lie, I began salivating at that point) Pierce answered: “properly understood, yes”. Back to Bamberg: “In America do we have freedom of religion”? Pierce: “Yes”. Then more banter back and forth with Bamberg claiming he’s Christian “and all that”. Then Pierce fell right into the leftists trap….saying “I agree that the Church does not have jurisdiction over the state”. Folks, that’s a huge misunderstanding….first of all there is nothing in the Constitution about “separation of church and state”…and it’s the government that has no jurisdiction over the state, not the other way around. The framers fully intended for the Church to influence the state. That is crystal clear from their writings and even the second clause of the 1st Amendment, the Free Exercise clause. My guess is that Bradley knows this, and just got his words turned around under fire…he’s a sharp guy from the short time I’ve heard him, but this was a huge mistake. He was probably not ready for Bamberg’s inane fire. I was sitting right behind him in the room, and I was ready to completely take Bamberg’s pathetic line of questioning apart. That was a softball that should have been expected and crushed with the facts and history of that erroneous phrase. My jaw hit the floor when he did not educate the leftist Rep. We cannot slam the weak establishment pro-life leaders and give a pass to our side when we blow it. I was prepared to take the members to school on the 14h Amendment and crush the asinine questions from Rep. Bamberg. I’ve seen and heard him before. I fully expected his filibustering antics and was prepared for him. The establishment pro-life speakers for the most part appeared totally unprepared for his antics. He’s running for governor and he was prepped to feed his pathetic leftist followers in attendance and online.
The drafters of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution, and the framers of the 14th Amendment gave us the legal firepower to own the argument on the equal protection of the unborn. As believers, we have the high bar and responsibility to not only offer and argue the biblical reasoning for Personhood and Equal Protection, we are commanded to go further and offer a reasoned offensive argument (1 Peter 3:15) as opposed to playing defense (see gates of hell / Matthew 16:18). We should be doing this from the scriptures, civil and federal law, and America's governing documents we have been blessed with.
The link to the entire hearing is here if you’re interested or are doubtful of any of my characterizations above. It's all there for you to see and hear. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php?key=15647...
My prepared statement for the committee follows if your still awake and interested.
-----------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon Chairman Jordan and members of the Committee, my name is Bob Menges. I’m a 20-year retired USAF veteran, and a 25-year private sector retiree. In retirement, I serve as an adjunct professor at Charleston Southern University where I teach in the Aeronautics Dept. I have also been teaching Constitutional Law to homeschool high school 10th, 11th, and 12th graders for 26 years. Just short of 300 young people have been through that 32-week course that covers not only the Constitution and the federal court system, but also analysis of 32 landmark Supreme Court opinions including Roe and its reversal in the Dobbs decision almost 4 years ago.
I’m here today to urge you to vote and pass the Equal Protection Act (House bill 3537) favorably to the full House judiciary committee.
I’m here to speak to you about two main issues related to the bill. (1) the false narrative that has surrounded this bill and (2) more importantly, it’s Constitutional importance.
For several years now, the cacophony of voices opposed to a bill providing equal protection to the unborn have pushed the narrative that this bill forces the death penalty on the mother who is often referred to as the victim in this heinous and barbaric act of infanticide. Clearly there ARE cases where the mother may indeed be a victim (forced by the child’s father, coerced by some individual or group, etc.). But for anyone willing to put time into studying abortion in America, and we’ve had plenty of time to do that and plenty of studies in the last 50 years. Anyone that has been paying attention knows that by every statistical measurement from the left or the right, from the pro-aborts to the pro-life side, virtually every study reveals that the vast number of abortions committed in America are simply for convenience.
Cited in those studies are socioeconomic factors, timing, relationship issues, or life disruptions—often categorized under "elective" or "convenience"—rather than medical emergencies, fetal abnormalities, rape, or incest. The victimhood of the mother, although admittedly present statistically, is by far the very rare exception. We have also heard the narrative that the bill would make it a crime punishable by death for having a miscarriage or for the saving of the life of the mother such as ectopic pregnancies etc. It’s fine for honest people to disagree on substance, it is however, a lie to make these arguments. Section 16-3-107 is crystal clear on this. The bill simply provides for criminal charges against the mother for the wanton, intentional destruction of human life en-utero. Every thinking legislator in this room and in the 170 that make up the General Assembly already knows that we already charge women with a crime when they intentionally take the life of their child immediately after birth. But five minutes before birth, no crime is committed by the mother for the barbaric procedures asking to have their child literally ripped limb from limb. It not only fails the morality test, it fails the logic test.
This brings me to the 2nd and final issue. The constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law. Section 1, clause four of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides “nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
H3537 defines “person” to include an unborn child and ensures that an unborn child who is a victim of a homicide is afforded the equal protection under the homicide laws of the state, with exceptions I’ve already noted. Again, the intentional taking of innocent life. Not a miscarriage, and not an effort to save the life of the mother. Section 16-3-105 goes on to state “Where the victim is an unborn child and the defendant is the child's mother; it IS a defense to prosecution under this article that the mother engaged in the proscribed conduct because she was compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or great bodily injury”. Absolutely nothing in this bill forces the state to seek capital punishment. The bill simply makes it a crime for a mother to intentionally take the life of her unborn child for convenience. Like any other taking of a life, the accused is afforded due process of law.
We make things criminal to not only punish the evildoer among us, but we also make them criminal offenses to provide protection for the victims of crimes. Equal protection of those crimes. This is also what makes so called “Hate Crime” legislation unconstitutional, but I’ll save that for another day.
All of us hope that criminal statutes will serve as a deterrent to the depravity of mankind, and we also use those statutes for the punishment of wrongdoers in our society. All this bill does is extend these same deterrents and punishments to our unborn neighbors. Nothing in this bill denies due process of law to ensure that the accused is afforded appropriate charges that fit the circumstances of the behavior, just as would be done for any other taking of a life, nor does it deny the adjudication process in a court of law by peers.
Lastly, it just so happens that in my high school class last night, we were finishing up the 14th. I always begin instruction on 14A by asking the students which amendment it followed, the obvious answer is the 13th, which thankfully finally abolished the practice of slavery. As in any search for original intent, you must first understand why it’s there. While the 14th clearly was designed for and included the principle that racial discrimination is unconstitutional, the framers of 14A did not choose to limit equal protection to merely addressing the racial inequality that continued following emancipation.
I won’t bore you with the courts current test for strict scrutiny in determining what are called “suspect classifications” of individuals, but certainly exempting the unborn from protections simply because of their geographical location, behind a curtain of at most 5 centimeters of flesh (at least according to Grok) and a politically correct decision to classify all mothers who terminate the life of their unborn child as “victims,” is not only suspect, it’s clearly not accurate and would have been unconstitutional to the drafters of the 14th amendment.
Please vote today to move this bill favorably to the full Judiciary Committee for consideration.
Thank you for your time and attention.
--------------------------------------------------
And of course, none of that was heard as the folks that showed up were virtually duped by the subcommittee juke and the work of their pathetic leftist member Rep. Justin Bamberg whom they allowed to run out the clock.
If you actually made it to the end of this, I appreciate you sticking with me...please consider sharing with those in your circle that may need this information.
No comments:
Post a Comment