The South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments on whether a roughly six-week abortion ban violates the state’s constitution.
In a hearing that lasted roughly three hours, attorneys for the state of South Carolina and a lawyer representing abortion providers stated their cases before the five-member court, with justices frequently interrupting to challenge their arguments or ask questions.
South Carolina’s abortion ban, known as the “heartbeat law,” was passed in 2021. The law took effect shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June but has been blocked since August while the state’s high court considers the legal challenge. The measure prohibits abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which usually occurs around six weeks of pregnancy. It includes some exceptions for victims of rape and incest, fatal fetal anomalies and the life and health of the mother.
The South Carolina Constitution — specifically, Article I, Section 10 — guarantees a right to privacy. At issue is whether that right protects someone’s ability to have an abortion.
On Wednesday, Julie Murray represented Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and Greenville Women’s Clinic, South Carolina’s only abortion providers and plaintiffs in the case. Three attorneys argued on behalf of state officials, the defendants: Kevin Hall for the state legislature, Grayson Lambert for Gov. Henry McMaster, and Assistant Deputy Solicitor General Thomas Hydrick for Attorney General Alan Wilson.
The South Carolina Constitution — specifically, Article I, Section 10 — guarantees a right to privacy. At issue is whether that right protects someone’s ability to have an abortion.
The section reads, in part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons … and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated.”
Hall, arguing for the state, said the state’s constitution doesn’t protect the right to an abortion, in part because it’s not specifically mentioned. Abortion also wasn’t considered by those who recommended amending the document to add the right to privacy or the voters who, in 1970, approved that amendment, Hall argued.
“When you look at the text and you see no reference to abortion, I think you can reasonably say the analysis can begin and end there,” he said.
Murray argued that the right to privacy extends to bodily autonomy and integrity, which she said, “includes the right to decide whether to remain pregnant.” She argued that if the right to privacy does not extend to bodily autonomy, the right to contraception could also be called into question.
There’s no timeline for when the state Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the case. Chief Justice Donald Beatty said at the end of Wednesday’s hearing that the court has taken years to decide tough cases in the past, and laughed as he told the attorneys, “We won’t do that to you.”
“Our decision will not be based on politics. It will not be based on cultural differences. It will be based purely on what … we believe the law says and requires in this instance,” Beatty said.
