Last week on Feb 15, the so-called "Human Life Protection Act" [sic] H3774 was given Second Reading in the SC House (Third Reading, Feb 16).
SC House Journal for 2/15/2023 - https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/hj23/20230215.htm
A personhood amendment was offered (Amdt No. 1) which would have supplanted the greatly flawed language of H3774, and would have instead established personhood at fertilization, thereby providing equal protection at fertilization, and therefore establishing justice, but it was tabled on a voice vote without a Roll Call vote record.
Later, another amendment was offered (Amdt No. 5) which would have also supplanted the greatly flawed language of H3774 with all its exceptions, its codification of the funding of certain "abortions" in the State Health Insurance Plan, and its explicit advocacy of birth control, including abortifacient birth control methods, which would likely result in actually INCREASING the number of early "abortions" that are caused by birth control drugs and devices which are both contraceptive AND abortifacient.
The current common approach to these drugs and devices, which in reality act both contraceptively and abortifaciently, is to label them as "contraceptives". However this is clearly less than the whole truth. These drugs and devices also work abortifaciently, regardless of whatever the "intent" of the user might be. The "intent" and actual pharmacological functioning of these drugs and devices overrides the "intent" of the user. [See brochure "Chemical Abortion" below for further discussion of the "intent" issue.]
Unfortunately however, Amendment No. 5 did not establish personhood for all unborn children, and therefore did not provide equal protection for all unborn children, and therefore did not establish justice.
As can be seen from the screen shot accompanying this text showing the very beginning of Amendment No. 5 to H3774, the language of the Amendment prohibited only the "deliberate termination" of unborn children. That would rightly prohibit all surgical and RU486 "abortions", but would do nothing to stop the far greater number** of early "abortions" caused by birth control drugs and devices which work to greater or lesser degrees both contraceptively AND abortifaciently, even if they are rationalized by many as not "intentionally" causing an "abortion". Again, the "intent" of the birth control drugs and devices themselves (i.e., how they actually work) overrides the "intent" of the user.
** 'Generations Radio and Covenant Presbyterian Church denomination Resolution re: ABORTIFACIENTS' http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2023/02/21/generations-radio-and-covenant-presbyterian-church-denomination-resolution-re-abortifacients-2/
Furthermore, notice the precise language in Amdt No. 5, "from detectability of fertilization". That is NOT the same thing as simply and clearly stating, "from fertilization", period. "From detectability" may mean from the point of a positive pregnancy test, which does not occur until AFTER IMPLANTATION of the approximately one-week old, living human being in the lining of the mother's uterus.
This point is also one of the great flaws (and deceptions) of H3774, the so-called "HLPA" [sic], which does not provide statutory protection of human life at conception, but only at the point of a "clinically diagnosable pregnancy", which again, would suggest a positive pregnancy test, which comes AFTER IMPLANTATION.
It is estimated that only about 10-20% of the total number of babies killed by "abortion" are by surgical and RU486 means. The other estimated 80-90% are killed by birth control drugs and devices which work to greater or lesser degrees both contraceptively AND abortifaciently.
So here is the problem with the erroneous report posted by "Equal Protection South Carolina" on the Facebook page of a SC House member. The post is accompanied by a photo of one of the SC House electronic voting boards, showing the voting for Amendment No. 5 to H3774. The post thanks 26 Republicans for voting for an amendment to H3774 that provides "Equal Protection for pre-born babies beginning from fertilization".
HOWEVER, AMENDMENT NO. 5 DID NOT PROVIDE EQUAL PROTECTION FOR ALL PRE-BORN BABIES BEGINNING FROM FERTILIZATION.
For the reasons explained above, the language of Amendment No. 5 to H3774 does NOT provide equal protection for ANY of the estimated 80-90% of babies killed by abortifacient birth control drugs and devices. Amendment No. 5 does not even protect from fertilization, but "from detectability of fertilization"!
Christian pro-lifers who sincerely wish to obey the Biblical and Constitutional mandates to Establish Justice must operate in truth, and acknowledge the biological facts, and work in a principled manner to protect ALL unborn children, beginning at fertilization, including those who have only lived one-week of life, prior to implantation.
Human Life begins at conception/fertilization (not implantation).
God says, "Thou shalt not kill (murder)." - Exodus 20:13, KJV