COLUMBIA, SC — The South Carolina Supreme Court on Thursday overturned an abortion ban after cardiac activity is detected — usually around six weeks — ruling the restriction violates the state’s constitutional right to privacy. .
The 3-2 decision comes nearly two years after Republican Governor Henry McMaster signed it into law. The ban, which includes exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or pregnancies that endanger the lives of patients, has attracted lawsuits almost immediately. Since then, legal challenges have been passed through both state and federal courts.
“The state certainly has the authority to restrict privacy to protect a woman from state interference in her decisions, but any such limitation must be reasonable and it must be meaningful in that time frames are imposed to give women enough time to define who they are. are pregnant and take reasonable steps to terminate the pregnancy. Six weeks, quite simply, is not a reasonable amount of time for these two things to happen, and so the Act violates our state Constitution’s unjustifiable invasion of privacy.” Judge Kaye Hearn wrote in the majority opinion.
Currently, South Carolina bans most abortions at 20 weeks.
Not a Modern Healthcare subscriber? Sign up today.
On Twitter, White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre welcomed the judges’ crackdown “on the state’s extreme and dangerous abortion ban.”
Jean-Pierre added: “Women should have the right to make their own decisions about their bodies.
The various orders have given both proponents and opponents of the law cause to celebrate and dismay. Those seeking abortions in the state have seen the legal window expand to the previous limit of 20 weeks before rolling back to the latest restrictions and back again.
The federal court had previously suspended the law. But the US Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade allowed the restrictions to take place — only for a short time. The state Supreme Court temporarily blocked it this past August as judges considered a new challenge.
The major high court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health created a flurry of activity at the state level. Republican-dominated states instituted new restrictions while abortion rights advocates sought additional protections. With federal abortion protections gone, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued in July under the privacy rights of South Carolina’s constitution. Meanwhile, other countries have seen challenges to the restrictions as a matter of religious freedom.
In South Carolina, attorneys representing the state Legislature have argued that privacy should be understood in a narrow sense. In oral arguments this past October, they argued that historical context suggests lawmakers intended to protect against searches and seizures when they ratified the right in 2014. 1971. Planned Parenthood lawyers representing challengers have said that the right to privacy includes abortion. They argue that previous decisions by the state Supreme Court have expanded body autonomy.
Chief Justice Donald Beatty and Justice John Cannon Few joined Hearn with the majority. Justice George James, Jr., wrote in a dissenting opinion that privacy is only protected against searches and seizures. Justice John Kittredge wrote separately that the state constitution protects privacy beyond searches and seizures but does not apply in this case.
Although Few said the restriction on the duration of an abortion was “clearly justified”, he added that the law in question leaves those considering abortion “no other choice”.
“Therefore, if a significant proportion of pregnant women do not know they are pregnant in time to have meaningful discussions, engage in full deliberation and prayer, and then arrange timely abortions, pregnant, I cannot conceive of a winning argument for that meaningful choice. exists or denying that option is not an unjustifiable invasion of privacy,” Few wrote in concurrence.
Many judges stressed that Thursday’s ruling only faced legal questions and dismissed the political aspects of the argument.
The judges’ limited ruling left the door open for future changes. The state House and Senate disagreed on additional restrictions during a special session on abortion this past summer. However, a growing small group of conservative lawmakers have vowed to push that limit again in this legislative session – despite previous assertions by some Republican leaders. no agreement could be reached.
In a statement sent to The Associated Press, South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Trav Robertson welcomed Thursday’s ruling, which he said was “a voice of reason and sanity to appease the legislative actions of the United States.” Republicans aim to deprive women and doctors of their rights.”
Republican South Carolina House of Representatives Speaker G. Murrell Smith, Jr., wrote in a series of tweets that state judges “have followed the path of the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade by creating a constitutional right to abortion where none exists.” Smith echoed Justice Kittredge’s words, adding that the decision did not respect the separation of powers.
Download Modern Healthcare’s app to stay informed when there’s breaking industry news.
In a dissenting opinion, Kittredge warned against “a judicial resolution to this policy dispute” rather than “appropriate constitutional challenge.”
“Our legislature has made a policy decision governing abortion in South Carolina. The legislative policy determination, as contained in the Act, prioritizes the protection of the life of the unborn child,” Kittredge wrote.
South Carolina Republicans vowed to move forward. Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a statement that his office is reviewing his options. McMaster, who will soon take office in his last full term, indicated Thursday that the new abortion measure will be a priority when the state Legislature reconvenes next week.
“With this opinion, the Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction,” McMaster said in a statement. “The people have repeatedly spoken out through their elected representatives on this issue. I look forward to working with the General Assembly to correct this.”
The decision may also spur interest in changing South Carolina’s judge selection process. Lawmakers are now selecting nearly all state judges, including Supreme Court justices, after a selection committee screened potential candidates.
In a statement, GOP South Carolina President Drew McKissick called the decision “extremely disappointing and another unfortunate example of judicial activism” and said the ruling “goes against the will of the voters.” voters in South Carolina and is another reminder of the urgent need to reform the electoral and judicial selection process.”
Advocates of access to abortion say they will resist future attempts to restrict abortion.
“This is a huge victory for the legal abortion movement in the South,” said Jenny Black, President of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic in a statement. “Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and our partners will continue to fight to block any bill that would allow politicians to interfere in people’s private healthcare decisions.”
