A judicial order has temporarily stalled South Carolina’s new regulation, which predominantly outlaws abortions after six weeks of gestation, allowing healthcare providers a brief respite until the State Supreme Court assesses the statute. This development in the South Carolina landscape, with a drastic focus on abortion control, reflects nationwide trends after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, permitting states to frame their abortion laws, thus leading to a chaotic scramble for patients to secure care.
The injunction issued by Judge Clifton Newman reverted South Carolina’s abortion law to roughly a 20-week limit, arriving a day after Governor Henry McMaster passed the law unannounced. This sudden move led to uncertainty for several individuals seeking abortions, introducing the possibility of a lawful abortion becoming illicit mid-procedure.
“It’s a tremendous challenge for not only the women themselves but also their doctors – including those at Planned Parenthood and hospitals statewide, who need clarity on the course of action during emergencies,” commented Vicki Ringer, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood in South Carolina.
Stricter abortion restrictions are also in the pipeline in North Carolina and Florida, which previously offered relatively more complete access to the procedure. This change threatens to cause further delays in abortion procedures as the demand increases.
In the aftermath of other Southern states imposing near-total abortion bans, the frequency of abortions has skyrocketed in South Carolina. State health data reveal that the number of monthly abortions has tripled, with almost half the cases involving out-of-state individuals.
The legislation, passed by the General Assembly recently, bears similarities to a 2021 ban on abortions detectable by cardiac activity, which was ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. Legislators argue that the new law includes technical adjustments to sway the Supreme Court’s decision, but Judge Newman stated that his role doesn’t involve predicting the success of such changes.
“The current state of affairs should be retained until the Supreme Court revisits its decision,” Newman stated. Shortly after Newman’s order, state attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court for a speedy hearing of the case or nullification of Newman’s decision to “protect the lives of countless unborn children,” as stated in their court filings.
However, immediately following the law’s enactment, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit stating the abortion clinics in South Carolina were overwhelmed with cancellations from patients in the later stages of pregnancy. They argued the new law, much like the previous one, would harm clinics and patients seeking treatment if permitted to stay active until a complete court examination.
Almost all 75 women who scheduled abortions in the coming days appeared to be past the six-week gestation period, stated Planned Parenthood attorney Kathleen McDaniel. “The damage is undeniable. It is happening, and it has already occurred,” McDaniel stressed.
The South Carolina Supreme Court’s majority opinion on the 2021 law clarified that while lawmakers have the right to protect life, the state constitution’s privacy clause allows women sufficient time to decide on an abortion. They noted that most women are unaware of their pregnancy six weeks post-conception.
Justice Kaye Hearn, who penned the opinion, has since retired, replaced by a male justice. As a result, South Carolina now hosts the only high court in the country without a female justice.
South Carolina’s legislative leaders remain confident that their bill will withstand the Supreme Court’s scrutiny this time.
“While I respect Judge Newman’s decision, I remain convinced that the heartbeat bill is constitutional and that the Supreme Court will agree,” Republican State Senate President Thomas Alexander said in a statement.
As the debate around abortion continues to evolve, the eyes of the nation now turn to South Carolina’s Supreme Court to witness the ultimate fate of this controversial legislation. The outcome could set a precedent for other states navigating similar legislative waters. Whatever the ruling, it will fuel the ongoing nationwide discussion on reproductive rights and influence future legislation on this deeply divisive issue.
