NO. 77
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The Senate assembled at 1:00 P.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.
A quorum being present, the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:
Matthew 7:12
In Matthew's Gospel the Lord Himself says: " 'So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.' "
Join me friends as we bow in prayer: How powerful is Your unfailingly true lesson, O God, that we are to do to others as we would
want them to do to us -- always. Of course, all of us know full well how difficult it really is to live with such a goal. So forgive us, Lord, for those many times when we have not been the women and men You call us to be. Yet surely here in the Senate of South Carolina, may each of these servants -- Senators and staff aides alike -- always care lovingly for every individual whom they serve, putting the interests of all of our citizens above their own, bringing rich blessings to all. In addition, dear Lord, know that we continue to hold in our thoughts and prayers Senator Grooms and his family in the recent death of the Senator's father. Now be with us all, O God, as we strive to honor You through everything that we say and do. In Your loving name we pray, dear Lord. Amen.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.
On motion of Senator CLIMER, at 1:13 P.M., Senator GOLDFINCH was granted a leave of absence for the balance of the day.
Senator SENN rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.
The following were introduced:
S. 1386 (Word version) -- Senators Shealy, Cromer and Young: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA FOR BEING RANKED THE NUMBER ONE UNIVERSITY ON THE "2022 MILITARY TIMES BEST FOR VETS: COLLEGES" MILITARY TIMES LIST.
l:\s-res\ks\071usc .kmm.ks.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1387 (Word version) -- Senator Shealy: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE NOVEMBER 1, 2022 AS "FAMILY LITERACY DAY" AND NOVEMBER 2022 AS "FAMILY LITERACY MONTH" IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
l:\s-res\ks\072fami.kmm.ks.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1388 (Word version) -- Senator Jackson: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE IDA DIXON OF RICHLAND COUNTY, UPON THE OCCASION OF HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN FOUR DECADES OF EXEMPLARY SERVICE AND TO WISH HER CONTINUED SUCCESS AND HAPPINESS IN ALL HER FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
l:\council\bills\jn\3654hb22.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1389 (Word version) -- Senators Harpootlian, Young, Setzler and Massey: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS PROFOUND SORROW UPON THE PASSING OF MICHAEL L. LAUGHLIN AND TO EXTEND THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
l:\s-res\rah\013sena.kmm.rah.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1390 (Word version) -- Senator Setzler: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR CASEY JORDAN HALLMAN FOR HER MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WEST COLUMBIA COMMUNITY.
l:\s-res\ngs\024case.kmm.ngs.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1391 (Word version) -- Senator Allen: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SENATE UPON THE PASSING OF JANIE BELLE BLACK FIELDS OF GREENVILLE COUNTY AND TO EXTEND DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HER LARGE AND LOVING FAMILY AND HER MANY FRIENDS.
l:\council\bills\gm\24851sa22.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1392 (Word version) -- Senator Fanning: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR ENSIGN BARBARA CAROLINA MAY ALDERSON, UNITED STATES NAVY, RETIRED, TO CONGRATULATE HER FOR RECEIVING A QUILT OF VALOR ON VETERANS DAY, FRIDAY NOVEMBER 11, 2022, AND TO WISH HER A JOYOUS BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION AND MANY YEARS OF CONTINUED HEALTH AND HAPPINESS.
l:\council\bills\gm\24854wab22.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1393 (Word version) -- Senator Fanning: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE FAIRFIELD MAGNET SCHOOL FOR MATH AND SCIENCE FOR ITS OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS IN EDUCATING STUDENTS AND TO PRAISE THE ADMINISTRATORS, FACULTY, STUDENTS, AND PARENTS FOR BEING NAMED A NATIONAL BLUE RIBBON SCHOOL.
l:\council\bills\jn\3653wab22.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1394 (Word version) -- Senator Stephens: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR SAINT PETER AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
l:\s-res\vs\016grea.kmm.vs.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1395 (Word version) -- Senators Scott, Adams, Alexander, Allen, Bennett, Campsen, Cash, Climer, Corbin, Cromer, Davis, Fanning, Gambrell, Garrett, Goldfinch, Grooms, Gustafson, Harpootlian, Hembree, Hutto, Jackson, K. Johnson, M. Johnson, Kimbrell, Kimpson, Loftis, Malloy, Martin, Massey, Matthews, McElveen, McLeod, Peeler, Rankin, Reichenbach, Rice, Sabb, Senn, Setzler, Shealy, Stephens, Talley, Turner, Verdin, Williams and Young: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE LITTLE ZION BAPTIST CHURCH UPON THE OCCASION OF ITS ONE HUNDRED AND NINETIETH ANNIVERSARY AND TO COMMEND LITTLE ZION BAPTIST CHURCH FOR ITS MANY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE BLYTHEWOOD COMMUNITY AND THE PEOPLE AND THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
l:\s-res\js\009litt.kmm.js.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1396 (Word version) -- Senators Garrett and Massey: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE FACULTY, STAFF, AND STUDENT BODY OF THE GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL FOR AGRICULTURE AT JOHN DE LA HOWE AS THEY CELEBRATE THE TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF DR. JOHN DE LA HOWE, WHICH DEEDED PROPERTY TO HOUSE SUCH A SCHOOL.
l:\s-res\bg\006gove.kmm.bg.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 1397 (Word version) -- Senators Gustafson, Adams, Alexander, Allen, Bennett, Campsen, Cash, Climer, Corbin, Cromer, Davis, Fanning, Gambrell, Garrett, Goldfinch, Grooms, Harpootlian, Hembree, Hutto, Jackson, K. Johnson, M. Johnson, Kimbrell, Kimpson, Loftis, Malloy, Martin, Massey, Matthews, McElveen, McLeod, Peeler, Rankin, Reichenbach, Rice, Sabb, Scott, Senn, Setzler, Shealy, Stephens, Talley, Turner, Verdin, Williams and Young: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE THE PASTOR, STAFF, AND CONGREGATION OF BETHESDA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN CAMDEN, UPON THE OCCASION OF THE TWO HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR HISTORIC SANCTUARY, AND TO WISH THEM MANY MORE YEARS OF SERVICE TO THEIR GOD AND THEIR COMMUNITY.
l:\s-res\pg\007beth.kmm.pg.docx
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
Columbia, S.C., September 27, 2022
Mr. President and Senators:
The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has confirmed the appointment:
Bryant Caldwell, 1221 Main Street, Suite 1600, Columbia, SC 29201
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House
Received as information.
Columbia, S.C., September 27, 2022
Mr. President and Senators:
The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it refuses to concur in the amendments proposed by the Senate to:
H. 5399 (Word version) -- Reps. Lucas, G.M. Smith, McCravy, T. Moore, White, Ligon, Long, Gilliam, Chumley, Burns, Hardee, Bailey, J.E. Johnson, B. Newton, Hewitt, Bustos, Jordan, M.M. Smith, Davis, Hyde, Hixon, West, Hiott, Jones, Caskey, Fry, Thayer, Pope, Forrest, Oremus, Trantham, Bennett, McGarry, Felder, Allison, D.C. Moss, Brittain, Nutt, Haddon, Huggins, G.R. Smith, Magnuson, May, Wooten, B. Cox, Yow, Murphy, Crawford, Bryant and Robbins: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-41-05 SO AS TO PROHIBIT ABORTIONS IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House
Received as information.
Senator MASSEY moved that the Senate recede from the Senate amendments on H. 5399.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Adams Alexander Cash Climer Corbin Gambrell Garrett Grooms Kimbrell Loftis Martin Peeler Reichenbach Rice Talley Turner Verdin
Allen Bennett Campsen Cromer Davis Fanning Gustafson Harpootlian Hembree Hutto Jackson Johnson, Kevin Johnson, Michael Malloy Massey Matthews McElveen McLeod Sabb Scott Senn Setzler Shealy Stephens Williams Young
The motion to recede from the Senate amendments failed.
Senator MASSEY moved that the Senate insist on its Senate amendments on H. 5399.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Adams Alexander Bennett Campsen Cash Climer Corbin Cromer Davis Fanning Gambrell Garrett Grooms Gustafson Harpootlian Hembree Hutto Jackson Johnson, Michael Kimbrell Loftis Martin Massey Matthews McElveen Peeler Rankin Reichenbach Rice Senn Setzler Shealy Stephens Talley Turner Verdin Williams Young
Allen Johnson, Kevin Malloy McLeod Sabb Scott
The motion passed.
H. 5399 (Word version) -- Reps. Lucas, G.M. Smith, McCravy, T. Moore, White, Ligon, Long, Gilliam, Chumley, Burns, Hardee, Bailey, J.E. Johnson, B. Newton, Hewitt, Bustos, Jordan, M.M. Smith, Davis, Hyde, Hixon, West, Hiott, Jones, Caskey, Fry, Thayer, Pope, Forrest, Oremus, Trantham, Bennett, McGarry, Felder, Allison, D.C. Moss, Brittain, Nutt, Haddon, Huggins, G.R. Smith, Magnuson, May, Wooten, B. Cox, Yow, Murphy, Crawford, Bryant and Robbins: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-41-05 SO AS TO PROHIBIT ABORTIONS IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
On motion of Senator MASSEY, the Senate insisted upon its amendments to H. 5399 and asked for a Committee of Conference.
Whereupon, Senators MASSEY, MATTHEWS and CASH were appointed to the Committee of Conference on the part of the Senate and a message was sent to the House accordingly.
Columbia, S.C., October 18, 2022
Mr. President and Senators:
The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Reps. McCravy, Pope and Wetmore to the Committee of Conference on the part of the House on:
H. 5399 (Word version) -- Reps. Lucas, G.M. Smith, McCravy, T. Moore, White, Ligon, Long, Gilliam, Chumley, Burns, Hardee, Bailey, J.E. Johnson, B. Newton, Hewitt, Bustos, Jordan, M.M. Smith, Davis, Hyde, Hixon, West, Hiott, Jones, Caskey, Fry, Thayer, Pope, Forrest, Oremus, Trantham, Bennett, McGarry, Felder, Allison, D.C. Moss, Brittain, Nutt, Haddon, Huggins, G.R. Smith, Magnuson, May, Wooten, B. Cox, Yow, Murphy, Crawford, Bryant and Robbins: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-41-05 SO AS TO PROHIBIT ABORTIONS IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House
Received as information.
On motion of Senator GROOMS, the Senate agreed to stand adjourned.
The following remarks by Senator CASH were ordered printed in the Journal of September 7, 2022:
We debate a lot of issues in this Chamber. Most of the issues we debate in here are very political in nature -- how we're going to spend the state's money, how we're going to change laws, about labor and relations and all kinds of political stuff? That's the majority, the vast majority of what we do. Occasionally, much less occasionally, we take up constitutional issues. We start talking about the Second Amendment that's the first thing that comes to my mind, you know, it's something that is not centered on politics of nickels and dimes. It's centered on the Constitution. Very rarely do we take up issues that are just squarely moral in nature. That's what we have before us. It is an issue that's squarely moral in nature. Does it have constitutional ramifications? Of course, it does. It has political ramifications. Everybody likes to look at polls. It's primarily a moral issue. Where do we go for guidance on moral issues? Some people say you cannot legislate morality. If you can't legislate morality, let's remove all the laws about theft, fraud and burglary. All those things that touch morality that supposedly we cannot legislate. Let's just get rid of them and see what kind of a society we have then. Laws about killing because killing is a moral issue. So, I believe there are issues where there are simply moral absolutes, and this is one of them. I talk about it, and I think about it from that perspective until someone can convince me otherwise. I want to read to you very briefly from Psalm 19, "The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing in the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean enduring forever. The judgments of the Lord are true. They are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, the much fine gold, sweeter also than honey. The drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them thy servant is warned: in keeping them there is great reward. Who can discern his errors? Equip me of hidden faults. Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins. Let them not rule over me and I shall be blameless and acquitted great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer."
We are frail. We are frail creatures in our understanding and our attempts, something that is so contentious but of course, we do have to attempt. We do have to try to right the law that addresses the situation. My starting point in this debate is simply quite honestly the sixth commandment. Thy shall not murder. Intentional taking the life of an innocent person is a very simple definition of murder that I will stand by. I believe it's a moral absolute. It's not up for debate and it's not up for vote. It's not up for the majority will of this legislature or public referendum. It's a moral absolute. I believe that when we get into the business of legislating which innocence can be killed; we're not going to have legal protection from society. And we're going to set the parameters by voting on what the conditions are and how many weeks and so on and so forth. I do believe we have ventured in the area of presumptuousness. We ventured into the area of facing this child with anomalies that are incapable of life according to somebody's opinion. I presume that we know best, and that child can be intentionally killed. We presume in the hard cases that lie before us which we have discussed and apparently are going to discuss a lot more. We presume there has to be this state sanctioned allowance for the killing of a child conceived, through no fault of its own, through an act of rape and incest. You know if I was to stand up and read you the stories of people like Ethel Waters, whose mother was raped at knifepoint when she was 12 or 13 and gave birth to Ethel Waters at the age of 13. I could go on and on about children who should have been deformed by their hereditary genetics. People that would be missing from this world if they had not been born and made their contributions. So, I'm going to continue that effort to try to provide legal protection for all the innocents. I would call upon those who believe in the sanctity of human life that all humans are created equal in the image of God to join me in that effort. I appreciate your attention, thank you.
The following remarks by Senator SHEALY were ordered printed in the Journal of September 7, 2022:
To say it's tough to be a woman in politics is an understatement. To say it's really tough to be a woman in politics in South Carolina is hardly a statement at all. You can tell by looking around this room. You can tell by looking at the portraits on the wall in this room and in the House Chamber and the halls of the State House. You can tell how tough it is by some of the comments made by some of the people in the lobby -- Things like, "Women aren't fit to serve", "That God doesn't want us here". Well God's pretty smart -- if God didn't want us here, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be here. The reason we come back everyday is because it is worth it. It is one more victory for the women and girls who have been told they do not belong. Fact is the numbers tell us that women legislators get more meaningful legislation passed and work better together and better across the aisle.
Here is where the problem comes in -- we know we are smart. We run the household, we run businesses, have jobs, take care of the children, take care of our aging parents, and we understand it all. The only thing that we are not smart enough to do is take care of our own bodies. We need men in government -- not medical professionals to do that. The closest thing we have to a medical professional in this Chamber is Senator CROMER, he is a pharmacist and I really respect you Senator CROMER but I do not want you as my OB-GYN. The fact is I do not want anyone in this room making life and death decisions for me, my daughter, my granddaughter -- and for that fact anyone. I also do not want the person I choose as my medical professional to stop in the middle of a procedure and request the South Carolina Code of Laws to decide if he can proceed or if he may be committing a crime punishable by a fine or time in prison.
Ladies and gentlemen -- I do not want any 10 year old who is raped by her 13 year old brother (and yes it happened right here in West Columbia) to be afraid -- because first no one taught her about sex, because there's no sex education in elementary school. She did not know she was pregnant until she was 6 months and she was forced to have a baby at 10 years old. The chances of this young girl's reproductive system ever being normal and her having children with someone she really loves have greatly diminished not to mention her psychological damage. But in the South Carolina Legislature, we know best.
But you ask, why am I talking about this -- isn't she pro-life? Yes, I am pro-life. I am also pro-life of the mother, the life she has with her children who are already born. I care about the children who are forced into an adulthood that was made up by a legislature full of men so they can take a victory lap and feel good about it.
You want children raising children who will most likely suffer domestic violence and live in poverty, but you do not care because you have done your job and you will forget about them once they are born. You will fight my legislation on foster homes and adoption. You will not support legislation to stop sex trafficking and pornography. You will not support my legislation for free meals for all children in schools. You are not going to help me on that.
If you want to believe that God is wanting you to push a Bill through with no exceptions, that kills mothers, ruins the lives of children, and lets mothers bring home babies to bury, then I think you are miscommunicating with God or maybe you are just not communicating with him at all.
I know we disagree on a lot of issues but hearing you talk about menstrual cycles, conception, how you know when your egg is fertilized, or having the baby -- I got to tell you it really disgusts me. I really do not think there are but five of us that sit in this Chamber that can even speak on those issues honestly. I do not even believe your wives would agree that you know how it feels.
But before I sit down I have one thing to say to you. Think about your wives, think about your daughters, your granddaughters, your nieces, and all those cute little girls' faces in your church. Then think about the decisions you want to make for them even though you do not know what their situations are. They may have been raped, maybe someone in their family is abusing them and you do not know it. Think about them when you see them in church, that happened to a little girl in church with me. Her mom and daddy were abusing her -- they finally ended up killing her -- they were sexually abusing her. Maybe they have a serious illness but instead of letting a doctor decide the best method of care for that child, let the South Carolina Legislature do it. We think we can do a better job. Well, I just do not agree. Thank you.
The following remarks by Senator MATTHEWS were ordered printed in the Journal of September 7, 2022:
I am surprised that there is still a lack of understanding that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Yes, I see some of the members, while I say "separation of church and state," turn and look away. I see and I have seen over the last few years that there's a divide in South Carolina and that's sad because we're one State and we're not a very large State at that. And here we are again!
I started this session hearing that in D.C., they did not want to have filibusters -- they were afraid their rights -- their filibusters would be taken away. That's exactly what happened in this Chamber under a different name. Here we are today. We're here under a Sine Die Resolution that's supposed to take up this Dobbs issue, but what it really meant was we're going to take up the issue of abortion, stripping away women's rights and choice. It gives a woman and a child power to live a very productive life. This soul-sucking effort to control a woman's pregnancy; I'm sorry gentlemen, but I'm not going to participate any longer in this insulting and degrading debate.
This is not your place. Let the people of South Carolina decide. You say you represent them -- let them decide. Let your sisters, let your mothers, let your daughters, let your grandchildren decide. I have been telling my constituents from day one that this is your constitutional right. If you do not speak up, you'll lose it. I told people yesterday to look at The Handmade's Tale. I've been hearing since I got here that Bills start out very small and each year they progress. This year, you tell us what we -- what we shall do for our reproductive rights. Then next year, what? You know I've heard some members of this Chamber even say, oh, my granddaughter says, or my constituents say, don't let them kill the babies. What are you talking about? That's your opportunity, that is your opportunity to explain to your grandchildren and your children that this is about life -- a productive life. I'm protecting your rights. I feel insulted when I hear people bringing up things that happened before Christ. I believe in the Bible. I raised my children in the church, but you know what? I believe in life, liberty and the sanctity of a good life. We've already seen proof that the polls show -- they showed this summer -- that only 8% of South Carolinians want a Bill that we're confronting here today and yet it was rammed down our throats in the Sine Die Resolution. But yet, let's march on for a few at the top part of the State. You've seen the consequences of the Supreme Court's overturning Roe vs. Wade in elections. You've seen the results in Kansas what the voters have said. They rejected an abortion ban by a huge margin; but yet here we go. South Carolina shooting the first battle cry. Come on! The Cook Political Report is flipping their election ratings daily from leaning Republican to toss up, you know what, here we go. Candidates and members of congress including those in our own State are scrubbing their websites where they've been talking about anti-abortions.
Now, I sat in session yesterday and I heard some very good amendments to the abortion Bill. But you know what? You own this. You decided that we are going to come here and tell women, even though you don't know what you're talking about, what their bodies should feel like when they become pregnant. You're going to tell us what we should do when we become pregnant.
But yet, I look at you thumping that Bible. Who are you talking to? Are you talking to the political pundits of the far right? Are you talking to the women that you love? We're not up here for re-election this year. None of us are. We do not run again until 2024. We're not up here for re-election this year. And I'm sure some of you are betting that women will forget your votes today, before 2024 when you have to run again. I can assure you with every breath in my body that I will make sure they don't.
If we are here to represent our constituents, their voices must be considered. They've told us they didn't want Roe overturned, that they don't support abortion bans, and they don't like what's been happening at the State House this summer -- but we march on. So instead of personal agendas, religious archaic beliefs, and moral codes that you should all enforce in your own house instead of in this Chamber, let's do what the voters of South Carolina want. Let's codify the stipulations of the Roe vs. Wade decision that governed our land for nearly 50 years. And if you don't believe me, let's ask the voters. Don't trust me, let's put this issue before the voters. Let the people of South Carolina decide. If abortion remains legal in this State, the issue is too important to be decided by a few men in this State House. It's up to you. Thank you.
The following remarks by Senator GUSTAFSON were ordered printed in the Journal of September 7, 2022:
I do agree with Senator CASH that there are no easy answers, but there are right ones. What is right is that we do the best job possible balancing the rights of the child with the rights of the mother, but this Bill does not seem to regard the mother at all. The kind Senator DAVIS brought this view into focus yesterday at the Senate Medical Affairs meeting. He offered that this Bill does not recognize or even acknowledge any other right. Do we women have no right to any autonomy of our bodies? Are we simply baby machines? Are the circumstances by which the female is pregnant entirely irrelevant? Pregnant with a dead baby? Nope. Too bad. Have ectopic pregnancy? Nope. Too bad. Raped at 11 by grandfather and pregnant? Nope. Too bad.
In a utopian world for many of us, no one would have sex before marriage and every single mother would carry to full term with no medical problems whatsoever. The Bill in front of us today can be called wishful thinking legislation. We wish there were fewer teenage pregnancies, we wish we did not have to make the decision to reduce the number of embryos to twins if needed for viability, we wish all children would wait until marriage or an adult committed relationship before engaging in sexual activity, we wish that contraception is just understood by all no matter the age and all information taught at home, we wish that women would stop talking about their bodies -- did that last one catch your attention? Legislation is not created in a vacuum.
Seems like women will be penalized for being victims of rape, incest, or being pregnant with a fatal fetal anomaly. The majority of our voters do not support this Bill with no exceptions; this is fact. I have been warned not to "water down the Bill". This is not a loophole. I do not understand how S.1 could be so widely supported with this obvious exception less than two years ago, and now, it is completely off the table?
We have a real opportunity to clearly define a fatal fetal anomaly. There seems to be some confusion on birth defects v. fatal fetal anomalies. I was born with a congenital defect of hearing loss with about half of my hearing in my right ear and a malformed mouth. Fatal birth defects are not the same as all birth defects. Down syndrome is not a fatal fetal anomaly as suggested yesterday. Chromosomal abnormalities account for about half of all miscarriages, but the key word here is fatal. Prenatal testing between weeks 18 - 23 allows the doctors to view development of the formation of baby's head, brain, and facial features, spinal development, structure of the abdominal wall and internal organ, heart and lung structure and function, kidney formation and function, and formation of limbs, hands, and feet. There are two general categories of fetal anomalies, structural and functional. It is very possible that some defects will not be visible until later in pregnancy. Lethal means the baby cannot survive outside the uterus.
Being forced to carry a baby with a lethal anomaly would be a nightmare. So, what generally happens in a forced birth in these circumstances? A high degree of severe infection. These anomalies need to be clearly defined and included in this Bill. I cannot support this Bill without this exception. I heard about testimony by a woman, Michelle Cilley Foisy, who was pregnant with a baby with no brain and a missing heart chamber.
I support increased access to contraception, more affordable contraception, expanded sex education to include what contraceptives are, mandated coverage of cost of contraceptives, and provided assurances to doctors that this Bill will not interfere with best medical practices and standard care.
We must face reality. We do not live in the Dark Ages. This is not simply a moral discussion, and I am not advocating for abortion on demand or abortion as birth control. There are more considerations that must be undertaken. Short-term decision-making and wishful thinking legislation does not allow us legislators to mollify the consequences of what we are doing. Abortion should be safe, legal, but extremely rare. Please support the exemption of fatal fetal anomalies.
The following remarks by Senator SENN were ordered printed in the Journal of September 7, 2022:
To those of you who stood up for women yesterday, I am grateful, but to those of you who feel that women are inferior remember you were warned when you are challenged by a female. I have been in the Senate going on seven years now and for each of those years we have talked about abortion. Here we go again, but why now? And I'm not talking about Roe vs. Wade. I'm talking about the fact that this woefully underpaid part-time legislature is supposed to be out of session for time with family or for in-district business but no, we are here telling our citizens that we need to come for special session because women and families need your guidance; because y'all know better than them. Right? Y'all know better than the women and the families. What I don't understand is why you don't understand that you cannot legislate morality. You cannot tell people who to sleep with. You cannot tell people who to marry and you cannot tell women what to do with their own bodies. Try as you might. Try as you might, but I can tell you now, a woman who is hell-bent to have an abortion is going to have an abortion despite what this legislature says. It may be messy, but she is going to get it done. We little ladies can take care of ourselves. But if given time -- if women are given time to adjust to their situation, to say okay I'm pregnant. What am I going to do? How am I going to handle this -- in many scenarios? Whether they're raped or not, let's just say they've had a night of sex and they shouldn't have done that. A lot of people in here want to even take away the morning after pill. What if a woman just has, oh heaven forbid, sex and finds herself pregnant? Maybe if we give her time to come to grips with her reality, she's going to do the right thing, but if she is rushed, she may not do the right thing. She may run off to another state and she may get an abortion lickety-split that she would not have gotten if she had been given time from the rest of us here in the legislature to come to grips and make the right decision. What you may not understand is that no woman really wants to have an abortion. Do you know anybody that wants to have an abortion? I mean that just does not happen. I mean to me, all women are truly pro-life, but a woman that has an abortion feels she has no choice. Thankfully, I've never been in that situation, but I will not judge. I will not judge my fellow females who have been in that situation.
I listened to a podcast, and it was actually the first podcast that I had ever listened to, but it was by an author named Jodi Picoult. She is one of my favorite authors. It is just a little two-hour read. You should listen to it. It's hilarious because everybody wakes up in America and, all of a sudden, only men can be pregnant, and it is hilarious. It is hilarious. I mean the women are getting the best jobs. The guys are waking up feeling like they're puffy and getting a little fat. They're all teary-eyed. They're getting hormonal. The women are getting the best jobs and the men are mad because their former girlfriends, who had broken up with them are out at the bar drinking beer. If you guys could picture yourselves getting pregnant from a one-night stand or maybe sleeping with somebody that you shouldn't have slept with or maybe just because it is just not right for your body, because it could be very dangerous for your body. If you ever thought like that, then you would never be bringing a Bill like this. Like I said, ladies and gentlemen, back to my original question. I do wonder why we are here discussing this in September and not when regular business is at hand, because the Supreme Court has already indicated that they are likely to weigh in. But instead of waiting to review the impacts of other states -- we are not going to do that. Instead, we are back here trying to make a rush decision, which I believe is going to be turned around if we don't do this thing the right way and let it go through the proper channels. In addition, if you disagree with me consider this. I think it is going to be interesting in the November elections to see what is going to happen because this issue is huge. Fifty-one percent of the population now are women. You don't think that we're going to vote on this? You don't think that women will vote single issue on something like this? Because they will. There is a woman out there who is my constituent. She is holding up a sign saying, do women not have any rights or any thoughts in the Republican Party right now? Another one of my constituents spoke when we had the one day that people could come and testify. She was raped at age 12 by two men when she was there babysitting. They locked the kids out of the house, raped this little girl then made her wash the sheets while the wife was out of the house. She got raped. She got pregnant on her first time ever having sex. Isn't that awful? She was so ashamed she didn't want her parents to know. She thought, first of all, that her daddy would kill the men, but she also thought that her parents, neighborhood and everybody in her school would feel that she was tainted somehow. So that little girl, thankfully, found a nurse who was her neighbor who took her to another state to have an abortion and her parents did not even find out about it. She suffered through that alone. What she did not tell y'all though is that five years later those two men who raped her, raped, and killed an 18-year-old and so they're in prison now. Thank gosh. But this Body would have that 12-year-old carry that child to term. That is something that I cannot even think about. I just cannot even think about that.
I'm trying to wrap this up for you. Think about the Republican Creed. I don't know how abortion became so big in our Party. It's because there are extremists that turn around and they make the agendas. They make the platform, so here that is on the platform, but if you listen to the Republican Creed there is nothing even close to that -- nothing close to that on the platform. What I ask you to do is start focusing less on social issues and focusing more on lowering taxes and on fiscal conservatism, please. That is my ask. The other thing I'm asking is, please, give us equal rights. You know y'all won't even give us equal rights and here is why. We don't need equal rights. We got y'all. The little ladies, we got y'all. Why would we even need equal rights? I do hope that one of you chairman are going to let equal rights come out of the box this year.
My final ask is let's put this whole issue on the ballot. Let's put it on the ballot, but we won't do that because y'all are scared to do that. The same thing that happened in Kansas would happen here resoundingly. Y'all think you know better than your own constituents. Y'all have said time and again your constituents want this. Mine don't. I can tell you now, mine don't and odds are that yours don't either. We can do better than this, ladies and gentlemen. We can do better than this. We are better than this. I'm going to ask you to please, please at least give us exceptions and I'm going to ask you to please let us put this on a referendum. Thank you.
The following remarks by Senator STEPHENS were ordered printed in the Journal of September 8, 2022:
Good morning, Mr. PRESIDENT and colleagues. Again, I thank the citizens of District 39 for affording me the opportunity to represent them in this Body. As mentioned in my installation speech to this Body back in 2021, I do not take this position lightly, and I am not here for personal gains or political gamesmanship. We are all here to carry out the duties of which our oath of office prescribed.
The past couple of months, well the entire Senate Session since January, I must say truly have been an enlightening and soul searching event that puts to test my super-ego that operates as a moral conscience and the ego, the realistic part, that mediate between the desires of the id and the super-ego. After hearing the presentation of my colleagues yesterday and into the evening, I witnessed a very true passion for what my colleagues believe in -- that will enhance the life living of the citizens of South Carolina for many generations to come.
I came into this Body with the energy, and I thought the intellect to change South Carolina just by my being present in this law-making body. I cannot just vote on an issue without doing myself due diligence. I have come to respect the opinions of others and be open to other points of view which prompts me to think of the generational effects of this legislation. I said to my colleagues that we need to continue constructive dialogue so that we pass legislation that guarantees the goal for which it was proposed.
There is a song I came to love in the 1970's, Senator MATTHEWS. It was by the O'Jays, "Give the People What They Want." Truly, give the people what they want. I have been all over the Nation and everybody wants the same thing. It is a unanimous decision -- they are ready for a change. It is about time for things to get better. People want the truth, the truth and no more lies. People want freedom, justice and equality. I want it for you, and I want it for me. People want better education. People need understanding. People need equality. People need freedom.
Article 7 of the South Carolina Human Life Protection Act beyond the shadow of a doubt gives me heartburn in its present form. There were some good amendments proposed yesterday. Was it truly what the majority of the people wanted? I will say not. People want the choice and the right to do with their bodies as we men may never understand. Because we hold these truths to be self-evident that we are all created equal and endorsed by our creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and happiness.
In my closing, I ask the question, "If passed would this State be forcing a woman to undergo a life-threatening unsafe abortion, threatening her right to life?" These unsafe abortions are responsible for the death of 47,000 women per the World Health Organization. The incidents of unsafe abortions are closely associated with high maternal mortality rates. Therefore, laws that force women to resort to unsafe procedures infringe upon a woman's right to life.
I ask you my colleagues -- let us not hastily pass something that we know people do not want. Thank you, Mr. PRESIDENT, and thank you, fellow colleagues.
The following remarks by Senator CASH were ordered printed in the Journal of September 8, 2022:
We debated a lot of issues in this Chamber. Most of the issues we debate in here are very political in nature -- how we're going to spend the state's money, how we're going to change laws, about labor and relations and all kinds of political stuff. That's the majority -- vast majority of what we do. Occasionally, much less occasionally, we take up constitutional issues. We start talking about the Second Amendment that's the first thing that comes to my mind, you know, it's something that is not centered on politics of nickels and dimes. It's centered on the Constitution. Speaking on that, it centers on the Constitution. Very rarely do we take up issues that are just squarely moral in nature. That's what we have before us. It is an issue that's squarely moral in nature. Does it have constitutional ramifications? Of course it does. It has political ramifications. Everybody likes to look at polls. It's primarily a moral issue. Where do we go for guidance on moral issues? Some people say you cannot legislate morality. If you can't legislate morality, let's remove all the laws about theft, fraud, burglary -- all those things that touch on morality that supposedly we cannot legislate. Let's just get rid of them and see what kind of a society we have then. Laws about killing because killing is a moral issue. So, I believe there are issues where there are simply moral absolutes and this is one of them. I talk about it, and I think about it from that perspective until someone can convince me otherwise. I want to read to you very briefly from Psalm 19. "The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing in the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean enduring forever. The judgments of the Lord are true. They are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, the much fine gold, sweeter also than honey. The drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them thy servant is warned: in keeping them there is great reward. Who can discern his errors? Equip me of hidden faults. Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins. Let them not rule over me and I shall be blameless and acquitted great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, Oh, Lord, my rock and my redeemer." We are frail. We are frail creatures in our understanding and our attempts -- something that is so contentious but of course, we do have to attempt. We do have to try to right the law that addresses the situation. My starting point in this debate is simply quite honestly the sixth commandment. Thy shall not murder. Intentional taking the life of an innocent person is a very simple definition of murder that I will stand by. I believe it's a moral absolute. It's not up for debate and it's not up for vote. Not up for the majority will of this legislature or public referendum. It's a moral absolute. I believe that when we get into the business of legislating which innocence can be killed, we're not going to have legal protection from society. And we're going to set the parameters by voting on what the conditions are and how many weeks and so on and so forth. I do believe we have ventured in the area of presumptuousness. Ventured into the area of facing this child with anomalies that are incapable of life according to somebody's opinion. I presume that we know best, and that child can be intentionally killed. We presume in the hard cases that lie before us which we have discussed and apparently are going to discuss a lot more. We presume there has to be this state sanctioned allowance for the killing of a child conceived through no fault of its own through an act of rape and incest. You know if I were to stand up and read you the stories of people like Ethel Waters, whose mother was raped at knifepoint when she was 12 or 13 and gave birth to Ethel Waters at the age of 13 -- I could go on and on about children who should have been deformed by their hereditary genetics. People that would be missing from this world if they had not been born and made their contributions. So, I'm going to continue that effort to try to provide legal protection for all the innocents. I would call upon those who believe in the sanctity of human life -- all humans are created equal in the image of God -- to join me in that effort. Thank you, I appreciate your attention.
The following remarks by Senator KEVIN JOHNSON were ordered printed in the Journal of September 8, 2022:
Thank you, Mr. PRESIDENT and members of the Senate. As we have been debating this Bill in full Session, I have been relatively quiet. I've been quiet mainly because I agree with Senator HUTTO as he has emphasized very emphatically, even in our committee meetings, that this is just a bad Bill.
I don't think my vote on any of these amendments is going to change how I feel. I have said time and time again that I don't consider myself to be for abortion or against abortion. I consider myself pro-choice. I consider abortion as a very serious issue that puts a lot of stress on mothers, regardless of which side of the category they fall on and I just don't know if I feel comfortable telling a woman under that circumstance what she should or should not do.
I believe in choice, and we have choice, but we only offer choice to one side of the equation. What I believe in is choice for both sides. If you are in that position and want to have the baby, that's your choice and if you don't want to, that's also your choice. A woman can decide and make that choice with consultation from people that will help her. I just know that I am not going to tell a woman what she can and cannot do in those situations.
I keep hearing pro-life, and I go back to my friend Senator McLEOD, and she says, "You know a lot of people who say they are pro-life, are not pro-life, they are pro-birth" and I tend to believe that because if I am pro-life, I would have a problem with so many assault weapons being in the hands of bad people. Now, I do believe in the right for citizens to bear arms but if I am pro-life I have a problem with all these assault rifles -- it's a known fact that people have them because they are weapons intended to kill a lot of people, very quickly. If I am pro-life, I am in favor of the change in the minimum wage, because we just can't live off $7.25 an hour. If I am "pro-life", I am in favor of Medicaid expansion, which I have filed a Bill about every year for the past several years and it can't even get a hearing. Pro-life is funding head start and early childhood education and all these things that are going to allow these children and their families to have life -- which I think the Bible says something about "having it more abundantly."
I keep hearing people ask what gives government officials or legislators the right to take even one innocent life. That's a good point. Sometimes I wonder what gives us the right as government officials and as a legislature to tell a woman what to do with her body. What gives us that right? The thing that gets me -- I heard a while ago while being in the business of legislating, "Which innocent life can be killed?" So, I'll end with this, if I am pro-life, I'm against the death penalty. As I sit here being very quiet, I remember back in 2021 a Bill came before us to add a firing squad as another method of capital punishment, and I looked at the list of people who voted for it, and all of the people who are pro-life voted for that. I know some might say, "Well you know these people committed heinous crimes, and they deserve the death penalty," and I would agree with that to the extent that research and statistics show without a doubt there have been people that have been put to death under the death penalty who were later found to be innocent. There have also been people who were on death row, about to be put to death, but because of new technology with DNA and other things, they were found to be innocent.
So, when I go back to the question from my friend, Senator CASH, I appreciate his resolve on this issue of "What gives the government the right to legislate the killing of innocent people?" I look back and see that he and others voted to kill people as capital punishment, although we know that there are other options to punish people. We also know from brief research that innocent people, and that's what we're talking about here --- innocent people -- have been killed under the death penalty. So, if you go back and look at the vote on that Bill, the vote failed, with one exception -- as far as adding the firing squad which tells me you believe in the death penalty. It failed with one exception along party lines and then a few months later, when it went to the House and they made some changes, it came back over here and the changes that were made in the House were concurred with along party lines. So, I have a problem reconciling being pro-life when you vote to kill people who may be innocent in one instance and then you talk about being pro-life as it relates to abortion.
The following remarks by Senator HUTTO were ordered printed in the Journal of September 8, 2022:
Members this has been a long process, and I will try not to prolong it, as others may also want to speak. However, I cannot let this pass without speaking to the women of South Carolina.
When you wake up a few days from now, and you do not have the rights that you used to have, I want you to remember those who spoke up on your behalf. You saw Republican women and Democratic women come to this podium. They spoke for you, they poured their hearts out for you, and they tried for you. You saw Democratic men do the same thing.
When your rights get taken away, it was Republican men in South Carolina who took your rights away.
The following remarks by Senator SENN were ordered printed in the Journal of September 8, 2022:
I agree with the minority leader, Senator HUTTO. I think we ladies have suffered a setback or we are about to suffer a setback at the hands of a lot of white males in here. We are going to live to fight another day. In reality, the white males feel like they have lost too because what did they get? We have been here for two days and two nights, and we are back basically to the same Bill that was passed a year ago and that the Supreme Court has already taken off the table, at least temporarily. But, because the Supreme Court has already indicated that they are going to look at it, I do believe we are going to live to fight another day and here's to hoping, ladies. Thank you.
The following remarks by Senator KIMPSON were ordered printed in the Journal of September 8, 2022:
I rise to echo the comments that many of my Democratic colleagues made tonight. This is a bad Bill. It's a bad Bill and what we saw for much of this debate was Republicans fighting for the soul of their party. During the debate that is what we saw from the Republicans while the Democrats for the most part remained silent. It was not our choice to be here nor at the Medical Affairs Subcommittee meeting but we have an obligation to the citizens of South Carolina to engage in vigorous debate. As I said in the subcommittee meeting and as I said at the well this morning -- there is no exception in this Bill. Despite the efforts of my good friend Senator DAVIS, there is no exception that could have ever made this Bill better. This is a sad day for the women in South Carolina. This is a day when my little daughter -- who you saw with me this morning -- will arguably have less rights than her grandmother. We are turning the clock backwards. This morning, someone characterized this issue as being before us in the November elections. People in this State will decide who they vote for on the ballot -- do women or should women have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies? I think Senator HEMBREE will remember when in 2014 I proposed that athletes -- student athletes -- should have the right to sign their own name on merchandise that is based on their athletic pursuits. That's a property right. Why should any college or university not allow the athlete to sign his or her own name on merchandise or pictures and not receive compensation for it? In my view, that is a property right. I can think of no fundamental right more important than a woman to choose to do with her own body what she wishes to do.
This is 2022, and I am so disappointed at where we are on this issue. There are many amendments to be taken up on this Bill. I thought we had an opportunity to send a strong message post Dobbs that we were going to be different -- that we were going to actually be truly pro-life. Pro-life is not a phrase that the extreme right can co-op. I am pro-life and for me, pro-life means recognizing the right of a woman to make her own personal healthcare decisions. We have got a lot of work to do. I hope that next year will be different or this year in November will be different. I know this was painful for a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle but we're going to find out if the other side of the aisle is right on this one. I can tell you right now there are a lot of mothers and their supporters in the lobby, and they are going to hold us accountable. As I offer this amendment, I believe I am pro-life, and I also go to church. I grew up in a church -- about five miles down the road from here, Saint John Baptist Church. My pastor was Reverend Roscoe C. Wilson. Reverend Wilson taught us that Jesus loves all the little children, all the children in the world. He also taught us about the golden rule -- treat others as you would want to be treated. I have a scripture, Matthew 7:12, "In everything you do, do to others as you would have them do to you" -- this is the law from the prophets. I think all of us will agree that we would like to make the decisions on our own bodies. We go to church, and we are pro-life -- that is the context in which I offer this amendment. United States Senator Cory Booker artfully said, "Before you speak to me about your religion, first show it to me in how you treat other people. Before you tell me how much you love your God, you have to show me how much you love all of his little children. Before you preach to me about your faith and passion, teach me through your compassion of your neighbors. In the end I am not as interested in what you have to tell or sell but rather how you choose to give and live." We just had a vote. I didn't read the entire amendment but what I heard Senator MALLOY say is that we have poverty in the State of South Carolina. Let's fix it. We want to expand Medicaid. We are pro-life, and you can't get any more pro-life than the amendment offered by Senator MALLOY. Time and time again, we reject pro-life amendments like expanding Medicaid. To my amendment, my friends -- and I am under no illusion that it will pass -- but it makes me feel good to talk about it. I want to take the law in South Carolina to where it was before the Dobbs decision. I read Dobbs, and I know it overrules Roe. I think this Body has an opportunity to send a message to the world. Why can't we be first in doing something right? I would like to gut this entire Bill from the House. I don't know why we spend so much time debating things from the House. We have been here two days. Let me back up a minute before I read my amendment. I am on the Senate Medical Affairs Committee. I was called away from my job for a Medical Affairs Subcommittee hearing. We are the Committee on Medical Affairs. The name in and of itself would lead you to believe that you are going to hear medical testimony. The doctors were very clear. The doctors did testify -- and I appreciate Senator VERDIN for allowing the doctors to testify -- unlike what I heard happened in the House committee. I think that my fellow committee members would agree that most of the doctors who testified were against this Bill. We had preacher after preacher quote scripture and tell us how to live our lives in support of this Bill. There were a few preachers who were against this Bill but for the most part we had preachers lecturing us about medical testimony. Let me just take a moment to let you know that there are a lot of mainstream religious organizations against this Bill -- United Methodist Women, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, United Church of Christ -- and there are more. These groups are saying to listen to the medical professionals, but the Medical Affairs Committee voted the Bill out of committee, and we disregarded the medical experts. I am no doctor -- I've gotten pretty humble -- I was going to say I was a great lawyer, but I've been listening to this debate, and I'm a good lawyer -- but we've got some great lawyers in this Body. I have watched the vigorous banter -- back and forth between able advocates. I was touched, and it was hard for me to sit there silently -- Senator HUTTO said not to unite the Republicans -- keep your mouth shut. I listened to the debate the whole day. I hate to get in the way of a good Republican fight but in good conscious I could not keep my seat -- women deserve the right to choose in the State of South Carolina, and we are sending the wrong message if we pass this Bill. I get that there are exceptions, and there were exceptions offered but if you notice not many of the exceptions were offered by the female members of this body. In fact, I don't believe any of the amendments were offered by our female colleagues. As I understand the medical testimony, this is a very difficult and sensitive issue. In my view, the exceptions while well intentioned -- they are only things that would make us feel good about being here. And I don't mean anything against those offering these amendments because I believe the members offering these amendments did so in good will. That's why I abstained from voting on the exceptions because if you total all the exceptions, you are really talking about a small percentage of women who would fall in those categories. In my view, this is a bad Bill and there is no way of excepting out of this problem. As I said in the committee, "You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig."
Let's move quickly to the amendment -- it would send a strong message, and I'm going to ask for a vote. I don't think this amendment has been offered. I want to offer it to make the record clear that I took to the podium and I fought for women's right to choose. That is what I said I was going to do and that is what I was elected to do. I don't know if you recall but in 2018, I stood at this podium for about eight hours, and we talked about this issue. A number of us talked about this issue -- we stayed here until around 2 A.M. This was my message then, and this is my message today -- this amendment says it is unlawful to impose any undue burden on a woman's right to obtain a lawful abortion. That is a good amendment.
In closing, I just want to read a quote from the Casey decision that was really the law of the land for a long time. Casey was after Roe. I'm going to read these two good quotes. The first from the Casey decision, "A proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction." That means we should ask the women. They are the ones who will live with this decision. Many of us live with it too when we counsel our spouses or children. Justice Blackman said, "At the same time the viability standard takes account of the undeniable fact that as the fetus evolves into post-natal form, and it loses its dependence on the uterine environment the state's interest in the fetus' potential human life and in fostering a regard for human life in general becomes compelling." That's really what this amendment is about. Before you speak to me about your religion, show it to me in how you treat other people. Before you tell me how much you love your God, show me how much you love all of God's children -- Medicaid expansion, health care, poverty. Before you preach to me about your passion for your faith, teach me about it through your compassion for your neighbors. Mr. PRESIDENT, I move for adoption.
The following remarks by Senator JACKSON were ordered printed in the Journal of September 8, 2022:
Over the last year, I have been studying rather intently about religious fanaticism. I have really been concerned as a pastor about religious fanaticism and I've been studying about when religious fanaticism meets power hungry people who put the pursuit of power above everything else. One of the books that many of us have read is How the Mighty Have Fallen but I had the privilege of being in Rome over the last month or so and visited the Vatican and other places. In my study of this passionate personal issue, just for me, because I have always been concerned about where we are going as a society. I'm a pastor. I'm a minister. I withdrew from law school to go to seminary school. No one in here I suspect reads the Bible more than I do. You may read it as much but seven days a week I'm working throughout Holy Scripture. What I found out is that when you get to a point where the laws of your State and your government are based on your religious belief, and not on what is best for the entire Nation -- the entire country of all of the people -- you are treading on very dangerous territory.
And I rise at the last hour, last minute, the last day of this debate to say to my colleagues, who are as passionate as I am about their faith, you should be very, very careful. There is no society in the history of the world that has ever survived -- a mentor scholar of mine said this. Think about this Senator CAMPSEN, "There is no society in the history of this world who has ever survived the convergence of religious fanaticism with the absolute pursuit of power without any moral integrity. It has always been the downfall to our society."
Lastly, I will leave you with this, and you've heard me say this from this well before. If you have not ever watched The Handmaid's Tale, I encourage you to do that. New episodes will come out in the next couple of weeks because here's what it is. The Handmaid's Tale is about a bunch of men who decide they know what's best for all people and they pass laws, and they change society without any regard to the people whose lives they are impacting. I will say to us that we need to be very, very careful because over the last couple days as I've sat here silently doing my own study, I really became saddened because it reminds me how closely we are becoming to the fictional area called Gilead in "The Handmaid's Tale." We can do better; I hope one day we will. Thank you.
I'm glad that my colleague brought up The Handmaid's Tale. I brought that up in earlier in the committee meeting. It's about a dystopian society and some of what I've heard in the arguments from this Chamber seems to be a little eerily close to what happens in The Handmaid's Tale. If you can just follow a little bit, because I hear a lot of griping about people wanting to go home -- even though we are talking about something that is so critical to our way of life.
In The Handmaid's Tale there is one scene where you have these two women who are journalists. They are at work, about to have their coffee, and all of a sudden their boss, the Editor of the newspaper, is shaking and they do not know why. They do not know what's going on because he looks like he's afraid to talk to them. He lines all of the staff up and said, "In 10 minutes, all of you women need to get your belongings. We have boxes ready for you. Get your belongings." What?... Why? He can't explain to them why they no longer have a job. They are upset. They do not know what has happened. Why? There are police officers at the door to escort them out. They leave out of their jobs -- this is also happening at schools -- but the scene concentrates on the two journalists who were very good at their jobs. They are escorted out of the building where the women have to go on one side of the street and men go another way. These women then go to try to get a cup of coffee -- to get a bus ticket using their debit card. They immediately find out that they no longer have property rights.
Because of this decision that they no longer have property rights, guess what happens? Their debit cards -- their assets are suspended in any woman's name. If you are a woman and you own something, it can go to your husband or some other male, but you have nothing. Then the scene changes where these educated women and women with means -- it's all women who could give birth, all fertile women -- they are trying to get out of the country. There is another scene where there are three men in a vehicle. I believe they are called commanders. They are elected officials and they're talking about the Bible. Coincidentally, there are different versions of the Bible, King James commissioned one which tends to be in some theologians' opinion a different, more conservative interpretation. In that vehicle, were these people who ruled Gilead, they are explaining how they can use women as chattel. By the end of this series that I looked at -- guess what -- they figured it out. They used the Bible to have ceremonies to use these women to continue to increase their own wealth, to make their new Gilead devoid of women with power, and devoid of women with assets. The women either become a wife to the commander or they become a baby carrier for the commander. They lose their rights. They cannot be taught to read. They can only serve in the way that the commanders want them to. So, I suggest that you look at that.
And I want to say this -- I got a little backlash from my own people on my side of the aisle yesterday and last night. Because you know what? We, each of us, all 46 of us had to run hard to become Senators and we said we were going to represent the people of South Carolina, our constituents. This issue is one of the most critical issues we have faced and when they wanted to just stop last night, I did not want to. Because I wanted -- if you wanted this, this bad -- you should have been willing to stay here to fight for the women of South Carolina. Even as I stand up here today, you have some who are jumping up saying, "Oh, we're still talking about it?" Well, we need to talk about it some more. We need to come here and have our daughters, granddaughters, and sisters in mind. This is important! And yes, I respect that we have differences of opinions, but we need to be willing to come here to work to seriously flesh out a lot of these issues.
I wanted to stand up to speak, when there was a comment about HIPAA read from a police blog or a police manual. I know that everyone in here who is a lawyer knows that there's Schmerber (Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)) and what was said was incorrect. But no, we have some throughout this Chamber who don't want to fully investigate and further these Bills. We have to, yes! When I kept asking about immunity for girls who have to give these reports, Senator MASSEY kept saying -- he just nebulously kept referring back to the other statute. Do you know why? Because the statute specifically says, generally, any woman who does anything to procure an abortion -- she can get up to two years. But no, did we hear that? You know why we didn't hear it? Because we didn't want to sit down and study for the benefit of all of South Carolina.
I don't know what else to say. I told you when I came here that I think people of South Carolina needed to decide this, the men and the women. You did an injustice to the women of South Carolina. You did an injustice to the legacy of this State and what we should stand for -- freedom -- freedom to do with what we want to protect our bodies.
On motion of Senator CROMER, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mr. Albert John Dooley, Sr. of Lexington, S.C. A.J. was a graduate of Lexington High School and the University of South Carolina Law School. He was a retired attorney and lifelong member of St. David Lutheran Church where he served in many capacities. A.J. was a member of the Lexington County District One School Board, Lexington County Council, Lexington Chamber of Commerce, Lexington Lions Club and was a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and Senate. A.J. was inducted into the Lexington High School Hall of Fame where he was the announcer for the football games for over 30 years. A.J. was a loving father and devoted grandfather who will be dearly missed.
On motion of Senators VERDIN, ADAMS, ALEXANDER, ALLEN, BENNETT, CAMPSEN, CASH, CLIMER, CORBIN, CROMER, DAVIS, FANNING, GAMBRELL, GARRETT, GOLDFINCH, GROOMS, GUSTAFSON, HARPOOTLIAN, HEMBREE, HUTTO, JACKSON, KEVIN JOHNSON, MICHAEL JOHNSON, KIMBRELL, KIMPSON, LOFTIS, MALLOY, MARTIN, MASSEY, MATTHEWS, McELVEEN, McLEOD, PEELER, RANKIN, REICHENBACH, RICE, SABB, SCOTT, SENN, SETZLER, SHEALY, STEPHENS, TALLEY, TURNER, WILLIAMS and YOUNG, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mr. Lawrence Grooms of St. Stephen, S.C. Mr. Grooms was the father of our beloved Senator Larry Grooms. Lawrence was a star high school athlete at St. Stephen High School. He was the owner of Grooms Oil Company, a U.S. Army Veteran and a member of First Baptist Church of St. Stephen. He loved sports, the outdoors, Clemson Tigers and meeting new people. He lived a life full of adventure, love and laughter. Lawrence was a loving father and devoted grandfather who will be dearly missed.
At 1:35 P.M., on motion of Senator GROOMS, the Senate adjourned under the provisions of S. 1325, the Sine Die Resolution.
This web page was last updated on Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 4:04 P.M.