Greenville News: Republicans challenge state’s open primary law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Patrick Haddon, Chairman, Greenville County Republican Party 864.320.1946

Joel Sawyer, Executive Director, SC Republican Party 803.988.8440

Greenville County GOP, SC GOP file suit to force registration by party

Greenville, SC _ June 2, 2010 – The Greenville County Republican Party and the South Carolina Republican Party have filed suit in U.S. District Court in Greenville, seeking to overturn laws that prevent political parties in this state from holding primaries in which only people registered for that party can vote.

The suit will have no effect on the June 8th 2010 Primary Elections, as it seeks only to change the way future primaries are conducted.

Currently, South Carolina law allows any registered voter to vote in any political party’s primaries, which denies political parties their 1st Amendment right of “free association,” a legal concept meaning individuals’ right to express themselves and promote common interests as a group.

In addition, the suit maintains that current state law denies political parties the right of equal protection under the law. State law requires that political parties who choose to nominate candidates by convention, rather than by primary, must get a 3/4 majority to nominate, effectively making the convention process prohibitively difficult. The suit notes that other entities, like non–profits and corporations, have no such restrictions under state law.

By overturning these unconstitutional state statutes, the Republican Party’s goal is to force a change in state law that allows parties to conduct party–only primaries in the future, if they choose to.

“We’ve seen Democrats influence Republican primaries for too long,: said Patrick Haddon, Chairman of the Greenville GOP. “We think that it’s our right as a party to hold our elections closed to people not registered as Republicans. Whether it’s churches, corporations or non–profits, government doesn’t mandate that people from outside those organizations tell them how to do their business. It should be the same for political parties.”

“The Executive Committee of the SCGOP made registration by party one of its top three legislative priorities for this year, and I am very proud to be joining Patrick and the Greenville GOP to push this suit forward,” said Karen Floyd, Chairman of the South Carolina GOP. “Republican primaries ought to be decided by Republicans, period. We believe this suit will be decided in our favor, and our hope is that it will force recognition of our right to make sure our primaries are not decided by outside influences seeking to exploit the system.”

###

AN aborted baby declared dead by doctors in south China’s Guangdong Province cried before he was due to be cremated, but died hours later as doctors refused to treat him.

A mortuary worker at Nanhai Funeral Home in Foshan City said the baby cried and scared him as he was about to throw the coffin into a furnace, Information Times reported today.

He opened the box and found the seven-month fetus moving, but apparently choking on some cotton wool in his mouth, the report said.

After the worker cleared his mouth, the baby yawned and breathed peacefully. Workers rushed him back to Guanyao Hospital which delivered the baby as medical waste earlier that day.

But doctors left him in the lobby, and confirmed after an hour that the baby died.

The vice head of the funeral house said Guanyao Hospital sent many aborted fetuses or still-born babies for cremation. This baby apparently survived an abortion at seven months, and he had videos to prove the baby was still alive before the cremation.

Hospital official Liu Sanhong said its staff checked the baby for an hour and made sure it was dead. Liu did not say whether the doctors tried to save the baby or not.

The body was later sent back to the funeral house. The report said all workers were ordered not to talk about the incident.

On March 31, at least 21 fetuses and dead babies were found dumped in a river in east China’s Jining City.

Eight had tabs with clinic code numbers attached to their feet. The Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University responsible for the corpses said they were “medical waste.”

Two hospital staffers have been detained while the director and deputy director of the hospital’s logistics department were sacked. A vice president of the hospital was suspended.

Read more: http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2010/201005/20100514/article_437014.htm#ixzz0puFjfBHK

The Senate conferees offered 4 “packages” of portions from the House and Senate versions of H. 3245, all of which failed to gather the necessary 4 votes (2 House members & 2 Senate members). Any option would’ve required free conference. Free conference requires 2/3 vote from each body, which is another hurdle. My assumption is that the Senate would probably grant free conference with all three conferees in agreement. 

All options contained parts that I can’t agree with, but all options are a positive step towards respecting the rights and liberty of the unborn. I supported all 4 options.
Option A

supported: Senators Hutto, Knotts, Bryant

opposed: Representatives Delleney, Vick, & Nanney)

1.In the case of rape or incest keep the current 1 hour waiting period provided there is a police report.

I don’t agree with these exceptions, however, a police report would prevent this excuse from being abused. Abortions in these cases are at most 2%. Even though I don’t agree with theses exceptions, I compare it to 100 people drowning. You have a life boat that seats 98. Wouldn’t you send out the boat?

2.Allow for an abortion after 1 hour in the case of “medical necessity”. 

Define “medical necessity” as “a diagnosis based on the good faith judgment of the attending physician and one additional consulting physician, who shall not be related to or engaged in private practice with the attending physician, that the embryo or fetus has or will inevitably suffer an intrauterine natural death.”

This language would’ve needed to be tightened up to prevent abortion clinics from abusing this exception. Many good suggestions were made in our discussions.

3.Allow an ultrasound to be performed at another facility at least 24 hours of the abortion.

4.Require informational materials to be downloaded from the internet at least 24 hours prior to the abortion.  Information will include where to get a free ultrasound, how to calculate the gestational age of embryo and information concerning role of genetics of parents. DHEC’s website will be based on the Michigan Department of Community Affairs website – including the date/time stamp.

Please take a look at this amazing website. DHEC has agreed to update its website modeled after Michigan’s and allow providers of free ultrasounds (Crisis Pregnancy Centers) to be listed.

5.Require the doctor performing the abortion to report to DHEC which waiting period (24 hour, or 1 hour) applies to each abortion.

Option B
supported: Senators Bryant, Representatives Vick & Nanney
opposed: Senators Hutto & Knotts and Representative Delleney

1.In the case of rape or incest keep the current 1 hour waiting period provided there is a police report.

2.Allow for an abortion after 1 hour in the case of “medical necessity”.

3.Require the ultrasound to be performed at the abortion clinic at least 24 hours prior to the abortion.

4.Require abortion clinic to give written materials to the woman. 
5.Require the doctor performing the abortion to report to DHEC which waiting period (24 hour, or 1 hour) applies to each abortion.

Option C

supported: Senators Hutto, Knots, & Bryant

opposed: Representatives Delleney, Nanney, & Vick

1.In the case of rape or incest keep the current 1 hour waiting period provided there is a police report.

2.Allow for an abortion after 1 hour in the case of “medical necessity”.

3.Allow the ultrasound to be performed at a health care facility, crisis pregnancy center or abortion clinic at least 36 hours in advance.

4.Require informational materials to be downloaded from the internet at least 24 hours prior to the abortion.

5.Require the doctor performing the abortion to report to DHEC which waiting period (36 hour, 1 hour, or medical necessity) applies to each abortion.

Option D

supported: Senator Bryant

opposed: Senators Hutto & Knotts, Representatives Delleney, Nanny, & Vick

1.In the case of rape or incest keep the current 1 hour waiting period provided there is a police report.

2.Allow for an abortion after 1 hour in the case of “medical necessity”.

3.Allow an ultrasound to be performed at another facility within 24 hours of the abortion.  Require an ultrasound to be performed at the abortion clinic 4 hours prior to the abortion – and at least 20 hours

after the informational materials have been downloaded with the date/time stamp.

4.Require informational materials to be downloaded from the internet at least 24 hours prior to the abortion.

5.Require the doctor performing the abortion to report to DHEC which

waiting period (24 hour, or 1 hour) applies to each abortion.

I know that you agree with me that any and all illegal activity must be confronted by law enforcement. I know that you also share my frustration that the Obama Administration simply refuses to secure our border with Mexico. To that end I believe that Arizona has landed upon a novel solution in keeping both with the need to prevent illegal immigration and protect the sovereignty of the several states as guaranteed by the 10^th Amendment to the federal Constitution.

The heart of the Arizona law, as you know, is the requirement that “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.”

Sorry for the ALL CAPS, but I pasted it straight from the Arizona statute. That ensures, though, that there will be no errors in interpretation. Many people, unfortunately, make many errors.

People who have not actually read the bill, like Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Nepolitano (ironically the former governor of Arizona) believe some truly outrageous things. Folks like them believe, for instance, that the law requires every police officer in Arizona to ask people for their papers based only on some undefined “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country unlawfully.

The actual statute, as you can see above, requires that law enforcement make “lawful contact” such as when they arrest someone in the process of a burglary or making a drug sale. Law enforcement must then have “reasonable suspicion” such as if the burglar produces no identification. I know that you agree with me that by this time law enforcement needs to find out everything possible about the suspect. If they find out that the suspect is here illegally, then I’m more than happy for their home country to take care of their incarceration.

Another truly strange accusation of many uninformed people is that the new statute has threatened the civil rights and liberties of millions of people living and working in Arizona. The funny thing about that charge is that illegal aliens have no civil rights and liberties. They’re neither American citizens nor even legal residents. The new Arizona statute, if anything, protects the civil rights and liberties of American citizens and law abiding legal aliens by removing a very large component of criminal activity, particularly in Arizona.

Another bizarre charge that I have seen levied against the new Arizona statute claims that, “It is…inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.” The US Constitution actually says in Article IV, Section 4 that, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” Therefore, the US Constitution requires that the federal government protect the states against the very human flood occurring in Arizona and elsewhere. The fact that the federal government refuses to uphold the US Constitution leaves it to the states—like Arizona.

I look forward to the summertime hearings that will perfect the bill in order that we might get it passed quickly in 2011.

This year, the SCGOP has added two questions to the June 8 primary ballot. The questions are only ADVISORY in nature, and carry no effect in law. The text of the questions is as follows:

Advisory Question 1 – The healthcare reform bill recently signed into law by President Obama requires all American citizens to purchase health insurance or else to pay a fine to the federal government.  The legislation also contains tax benefits and other inducements that apply only to certain states, benefits that were apparently designed to persuade those states’ Senators or Representatives to vote for President Obama’s healthcare reform Bill.

Therefore, be it resolved:  The South Carolina General Assembly should defend the freedom of all South Carolinians to make their own healthcare decisions by enacting legislation making it illegal to force the citizens of South Carolina to purchase health insurance or participate in a healthcare plan against their will, or to comply with any of the provisions or mandates of nationalized healthcare that do not apply equally to all states.

Do you agree with the resolution above?

Yes

No

Advisory Question 2 – Growth of state spending should not exceed the growth of the economy.

Therefore, be it resolved: The South Carolina General Assembly should enact legislation to limit state spending growth in South Carolina to a growth rate not to exceed the lesser of the annual percentage growth in income of the State’s citizens, or the growth in population plus inflation.

Do you agree with the resolution above?

Yes

No