By FITSNews || S.C. House Speaker Bobby Harrell apologized to members of his bitterly-divided “Republican” Caucus on Wednesday – hours after he joined Democrats in approving language that would open the door for taxpayer-funded abortions in South Carolina in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.
Unless changed by budget proviso, state law forbids funding for abortions under any circumstances – a restriction that a majority of these “Republicans” obviously feel quite strongly about preserving.
In fact, with his caucus in a full-fledged uproar and several lawmakers threatening to turn against him in next year’s election for Speaker – a race in which Harrell already faces a serious challenge from Rep. Harry Cato – the defeated leader backed down, apologized and pledged to reverse the controversial vote.
“He was very emotional, very apologetic,” one lawmaker present at the caucus meeting told FITS. “He looked like he had seen a ghost.”
The drama started Tuesday night when Rep. Bakari Sellers (D-Bamberg) offered an amendment to the state budget permitting the three abortion exceptions, all of which we support.
Here’s the text of the amendment:
No funds appropriated for employer contributions to the State Health Insurance Plan may be expended to reimburse the expenses of an abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and the State Health Plan may not offer coverage for abortion services.
After failing to “table” the amendment, the House voted 57-54 to approve it – with Harrell joining Republicans Don Bowen, Joan Brady, Alan Clemmons, Nelson Hardwick, B.R. Skelton, Mike Sottile and Annette Young in voting with the Democrats.
House Ways and Means Chairman Danny Cooper – whose committee drafted the budget – did not vote.
Again, we support the Sellers amendment.
We’re pro-life, and while it’s obvious that a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest isn’t the unborn child’s fault, we have a hard time saying that a woman in either of those situations should be required to have the baby. Say what you want – and we personally believe that she should have the baby – but government dictating that choice under those circumstances is quite troubling.
Politically, though, the incident is yet another reminder that Harrell is skating on thin ice … and is once again unable to command the obedience of his caucus like former S.C. Speaker David Wilkins.
By What? March 17, 2010 at 4:45 pm
I think you’ve got it wrong. I think it was Rex Rice who first introduced an amendment to change existing law by barring abortions in all instances. He is running as a “conservative,” after all. What better idiotic wedge issue to excite the knuckle-dragging base is there than abortion?
By donny March 17, 2010 at 4:52 pm
so lets get this straight…you go ape-shit over using public money to attract jobs to the state, but have no problem with public money snuffing out the life of an unborn child. Nice.
By PandaChris March 17, 2010 at 4:54 pm
It amuses me when people claim to be prolife but support spending our tax dollars to kill the unborn.
First, only in proaborts’ minds do the children of rapists deserve to be put to death because of the sins of the father.
Second, you call spending tax dollars on baby killing an appropriate use of OUR money but then claim to oppose so many projects as not worthy of having tax funds spent on them….you may be many things, but prolife and a fiscal conservative are not two of them.
In my opinion.
By vicupstate March 17, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Fits if you aren’t going to buy into the Conservative agenda, lock, stock and barrel, then you are a CINO.
By Nettie March 17, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I’m as prolife as they come.
But you get sexually assaulted. Then judge the woman who doesn’t want to have that baby. Kay?
By . March 17, 2010 at 5:24 pm
With a photo of Harrell with the CoEE review board members and university presidents, Barker, Greenburg and Pastides, I thought he was apologizing for the endowed chairs/CoEE/ Innovista boondogle – guess not!
By Erin Go Bragh March 17, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Your facts are a little off on this one:
“Currently, state law forbids funding for abortions under any circumstances – a restriction that a majority of these “Republicans” obviously feel quite strongly about preserving.”
Actually, the current law DOES provide exemptions for cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. General Assembly has approved it that way for about the past 10 years or so.
Almost got it right.
By fitsnews March 17, 2010 at 5:36 pm
What?
Sellers introduced this amendment. Go look in the Journal.
-FITS
By Ynotfirst March 17, 2010 at 5:51 pm
maybe all rapists and men perverted towards incest are “republics.”
By Nathan Earle March 17, 2010 at 6:14 pm
“. . . Harrell already faces a serious challenge from Rep. Harry Cato . . .”
Er, not exactly. If you all had been paying attention, you would know that the question in District 17 (the one Cato currently represents but rarely visits) is not whether Cato will be replaced, but who his replacement will be.
You see, at least last time I checked, SCRG was not a registered voter in District 17.
By Sick of Sanford March 17, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Does — ‘whichever the way the wind blows’ — Harrell (a.k.a. #1 Sanford ass kisser) beep when he shifts into high-speed emotional reverse?
By Over My Dead Body March 18, 2010 at 12:34 am
Bahahahahahhahaah! FTW! How evil does that woman look in that photo? This must be so that she can peronally fund those abortions so she can eat the fetuses…
By . March 18, 2010 at 7:47 am
The Woman in the photo is Mrs. Larry Wilson, a member of the CoEE review board along with another review board member and the 3 university presidents.
By CNChapin March 18, 2010 at 8:06 am
I think you’ve got this one wrong. I am in favor of legal abortions in the case of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger, but that is a LONG way away from being in favor of tax payer funds being used to PAY FOR IT!
If I am honest, I truly think that tax payer funds should not be used to pay for much of anything.
Support legal abortions in those cases, but for God’s sake do NOT support using MY DAMNED MONEY TO PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!!
By Darth March 18, 2010 at 10:10 am
Hmmm, has he offered the ritual supplication to Roberta or her minions?
By Boo freaking hoo March 18, 2010 at 12:51 pm
He needs to aplogize to the entire state for all the higher ed money he’s blown through.
By sid March 18, 2010 at 1:10 pm
You seem a bit confused, FITS. The amendment doesn’t remove a prohibition on certain abortions, so a woman is not now being required to let her baby live, nor would she be if the Sellers amendment failed. The government is not dictating anything, except how tax dollars are used. What’s the reason you feel tax dollars should be spent to kill these babies, but not other babies? If you think it acceptable for babies to be killed under certain circumstances, then that’s your position. But be brave enough to say it without trying to hide behind somewhat empty comments like “We’re pro-life.”
By What? March 18, 2010 at 2:47 pm
No, see the Sellers amendment just restored existing policy. It was Rice’s original amendment that would have implemented a ban
http://www.thestate.com/2010/03/17/1204049/issue-of-abortion-coverage-resolved.html
By Janet March 20, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Taxpayers should never be forced to fund abortions for any reason! Abortion in case of rape and incest is killing an innocent baby rather than punishing the criminal. Wrong!
By Janet March 20, 2010 at 11:30 pm
The government dictating is how we got this legalized murder called abortion and the death of 49,551,703 innocent babies since 1973.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that among these are Life…..that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…..”
It is the appropriate job of the government to protect innocent life.
By Janet March 21, 2010 at 12:04 am
Nettie,
There is a difference between giving birth to the baby and keeping the baby. Adoption is still a viable option for any woman who doesn’t want to keep her baby. If you think there is NO circumstance which justifies the voluntary killing of the unborn baby, then and only then are you as prolife as they come.