
South Carolina Supreme Court decides heartbeat definition allows six-week abortion ban
Columbia: The
South Carolina Supreme Court
ruled Wednesday the state can keep banning abortions around six weeks after conception by agreeing with the earliest interpretation offered of when a heartbeat starts.
The justices unanimously ruled that while the medical language in the 2023 law was vague, supporters and opponents of the law all seemed to think it banned abortions after six weeks until
Planned Parenthood
lost its challenge to the entire law two years ago.
The law says abortions cannot be performed after an ultrasound can detect "cardiac activity, or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart, within the gestational sac."
The state argued that is the moment when an ultrasound detects cardiac activity. Planned Parenthood said the words after the "or" mean the ban should only start after the major parts of the heart come together and "repetitive rhythmic contraction" begins, which is often around nine weeks.
The justices acknowledged the medical imprecision of South Carolina's heartbeat provision, which is similar to language in the laws in several other states.
But they said this drove them to study the intent of the General Assembly, which left no doubt that lawmakers on both sides of the issue saw it as a six-week ban.
"We could find not one instance during the entire 2023 legislative session in which anyone connected in any way to the General Assembly framed the Act as banning abortion after approximately nine weeks," Associate Justice John Few wrote in the court's opinion.
The justices said opponents of the law used six weeks when proposing amendments on when child support payments should start that were voted down.
And the Supreme Court pointed out Planned Parenthood used the phrase "six-week ban" more than 300 times in previous filings, as South Carolina's 2021 ban at cardiac activity was overturned in a 3-2 decision in 2023 and then reinstated months later after the General Assembly tweaked the law and the court's only woman who overturned the ban had to retire because of her age.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned
Roe v. Wade
and ended a nationwide right to abortion in 2022, most Republican-controlled states have begun enforcing new bans or restrictions while most Democrat-dominated ones have sought to protect abortion access.
Currently, 12 states enforce bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. South Carolina and three others prohibit abortions at or about six weeks into pregnancy -- often before women realize they're pregnant.
The fight over South Carolina's abortion law is not over. A federal judge this month allowed to continue a lawsuit by five OB-GYN doctors who said they can't properly treat patients because they fear they could be charged with crimes due to the vague definitions of heartbeat and the exceptions allowing abortions only when a fatal fetal anomaly exists or a woman's life is at risk.
South Carolina's law also allows abortions for up to 12 weeks after conception if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.
Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster said the state will continue to fight as long as the law is challenged.
"Today's ruling is another clear and decisive victory that will ensure the lives of countless unborn children remain protected and that South Carolina continues to lead the charge in defending the sanctity of life," he said in a statement.
Planned Parenthood also vowed to keep challenging the ban, saying it harms women and damages the state's healthcare system.
"Justice did not prevail today, and the people of South Carolina are paying the price. People have been forced to carry pregnancies against their will, suffered life-threatening infections, and died as a direct result of this abortion ban," the organization's statement said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mint
38 minutes ago
- Mint
Why Elon Musk turned against Donald Trump and his ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' - Here are the 5 reasons
Once close allies, now at odds: Elon Musk's once-robust relationship with Donald Trump appears to be crumbling amid growing policy clashes, public criticism, and mounting fallout for Musk's companies. The turning point seems to be Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' a sweeping Republican legislative package that Musk claims undermines innovation and economic discipline. Here's a breakdown of the key reasons behind the falling out: Elon Musk's sharp break from Donald Trump finds its most immediate pain point in Tesla's bottom line: the proposed elimination of federal electric vehicle (EV) tax credits. Under current policy, buyers of new EVs are eligible for up to $7,500 in federal tax credits, with an additional $4,000 available for used EVs. These credits, part of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, have been a critical incentive driving EV adoption—and by extension, Tesla's sales. But Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' backed by GOP lawmakers, aims to gut those incentives entirely for manufacturers that have already sold over 200,000 qualifying vehicles between 2009 and 2025. Tesla, by far the EV market leader, is directly in the firing line: the company sold over 336,000 vehicles in just Q1 of 2025 alone. According to JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman, the removal of these credits could represent a $1.2 billion headwind for Tesla—a significant blow as the company battles slumping demand, falling profits, and political backlash from Musk's government role. So, Musk became increasingly vocal in criticising Trump's massive federal spending bill—nicknamed the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Musk called the bill 'a disgusting abomination' and accused GOP lawmakers of abandoning fiscal responsibility. 'I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly… which increases the budget deficit… I don't know if a bill can be big and beautiful,' Musk told CBS previously. Musk's discontent escalated after Trump abruptly withdrew the nomination of private astronuat and his ally Jared Isaacman—as NASA Administrator. Trump cited 'prior associations' in his decision, which Musk might have seen as a betrayal. Isaacman had broad support in the space community and was seen as Musk's pick to align NASA policy with SpaceX's interests. His removal coincided with Musk's own exit as a 'special government employee' running the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted,' Musk said in support of Isaacman, signaling the depth of his frustration. Elon Musk's foray into federal governance as a 'special government employee' under the Trump administration has left a lasting dent in his personal and public image. What began as a high-profile effort to 'streamline government efficiency' quickly turned into a political and reputational minefield for the billionaire CEO. As head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk was tasked with cutting what the Trump administration called 'wasteful spending.' But the resulting actions—including mass layoffs in federal departments, rumored threats to Social Security and Medicare programs, and abrupt budget slashes—sparked widespread backlash. Despite Musk's repeated clarifications that DOGE had no authority over entitlement programs, public anger snowballed. 'It's a bit unfair because DOGE became the whipping boy for everything,' Musk told CBS. 'I've had people think DOGE is going to stop them from getting their Social Security check, which is completely untrue.' The political blowback triggered a sharp decline in Musk's public approval. Protests, online campaigns, and lawsuits followed, along with a string of death threats and acts of violence targeting both Musk and Tesla facilities. As public anger grew, Tesla became a target: Showrooms were vandalised Tesla vehicle sales plummeted Shares fell 50% from record highs Net worth dropped by $100 billion Musk lamented being made the scapegoat: 'DOGE became the whipping boy for everything... People thought it would stop their Social Security checks.' His candid remarks reflect a man caught between two identities—visionary entrepreneur and political appointee. 'I don't want to speak up against the administration,' he said, 'but I also don't want to take responsibility for everything this administration is doing.' Musk recently escalated pressure on the FAA to drop Verizon's $2.4 billion contract for air traffic control upgrades, claiming the system is failing. He offered Starlink as an emergency solution, suggesting the FAA should shift the contract to SpaceX. But critics flagged this as a possible conflict of interest—especially since Musk had been advising on federal spending.


Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
When misused, law becomes sword instead of shield: Karnataka high court
Bengaluru: The high court has quashed the proceedings in a five-year-old criminal case filed against a real estate developer by a business partner under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. "The courts must remain vigilant against the weaponisation of criminal law for settling civil disputes. The law, when misused, ceases to be a shield and becomes a sword. The complainant, to wreak vengeance or arm-twist the petitioner over a financial dispute, made use of the criminal justice system," Justice M Nagaprasanna stated while quashing the case against Vilas Bhormalji Oswal. Vilas, from Solapur, Maharashtra, established a partnership with Somashekara from Bengaluru and others for purchasing and developing agricultural land. Disputes arose in 2020 when Vilas refused to sign certain documents, hampering the development projects. Somashekara claimed that during a Dec 2020 meeting in a playground in Jayanagar, Vilas threatened him and made caste-based remarks. A complaint was filed with the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement in April 2021. Three years later, police registered an FIR, followed by a chargesheet. Vilas contested the chargesheet and summons in the high court, highlighting significant delays throughout the case. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Esta nueva alarma con cámara es casi regalada en Libertad (ver precio) Verisure Undo He maintained that he said "do not show your caste mindset" during their disagreement. While Somashekara argued that Vilas knew his scheduled caste status and made caste-specific insults, Justice Nagaprasanna found no evidence of casteist slurs in the initial complaint. The judge noted that witness statements on the Dec 2020 incident were recorded only in March 2024, with the case registered in April 2024. The court found significant discrepancies between the original complaint and the chargesheet, particularly regarding caste-related allegations. "The subject complaint is a blade of vengeance, cloaked in the garb of law. A criminal trial, if permitted to proceed on the glaring facts, would amount to an egregious abuse of legal machinery and would undoubtedly result in patent injustice," the judge observed while quashing the proceedings against Vilas.


Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's sweeping bill to cut taxes by $3.75 trillion but will burden millions of Americans. Check details
President Donald Trump's major legislative proposal currently moving through Congress is projected to cut taxes by $3.7 trillion while increasing the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next ten years, according to a report released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO also estimates the bill would result in 10.9 million more people without health insurance, including 1.4 million undocumented immigrants currently covered under state-funded programs. Additionally, the package is expected to reduce federal spending by $1.3 trillion over the same period. This analysis arrives at a pivotal time, as Trump is urging lawmakers to finalize the legislation in time for him to sign it by the Fourth of July. As the official legislative scorekeeper for Congress, the CBO's assessment will be closely scrutinized by both lawmakers and analysts trying to grasp the full fiscal implications of the sweeping bill, which spans over 1,000 pages. In anticipation of the report, the White House and Republican leaders launched a preemptive effort to discredit the CBO's findings and cast doubt on its conclusions. It is estimated that 8.6 million people will lose health coverage due to Medicaid changes. SNAP (food stamp) participation would drop by 4 million monthly. ALSO READ: Under Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill, over 10 million more Americans projected to lose insurance Live Events Elon Musk calls bill 'disgusting abomination' Billionaire Elon Musk blasted the massive tax and immigration bill at the heart of President Donald Trump's agenda on Tuesday, calling the measure 'a disgusting abomination' that would burden the country with 'crushingly unsustainable debt.' Although Musk — who stepped down Friday as head of the US DOGE Service, part of Trump's cost-cutting initiative — had earlier voiced mild criticism of the bill, his recent posts on X, the social media platform he owns, marked his most pointed rebuke of the Trump administration to date. For months, Musk had acted as the president's close ally, often appearing alongside Trump in the Oval Office and urging the administration to rein in government spending. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk posted on X. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' He wrote minutes later: 'It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' That post appeared to confuse the annual deficit with the overall increase to the debt over 10 years. ALSO READ: Elon Musk attacks Trump's 'big, beautiful bill': Tesla CEO's sudden outburst explained Shortly after that, he wrote, 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.' The bill would extend tax cuts enacted during Trump's first term and make good on new campaign promises — including no taxes on tips or overtime wages — while devoting hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending to defense and immigration enforcement. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed Elon Musk's recent comments. 'The president is well aware of Musk's stance on the bill,' she said. 'It hasn't changed his perspective. This is a strong, ambitious piece of legislation, and he's fully committed to it.' ALSO READ: Elon Musk's DOGE army left 'drugs, roaches and rats' in 'trashed' offices: Bombshell report amid Ketamine claims The proposed law would roll back much of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, which provided major federal tax incentives for electric vehicles, battery production, and solar energy — key areas for Musk's businesses. Tesla, in particular, has taken a hit amid declining enthusiasm for Musk's DOGE initiatives, reporting a 71% drop in profits in the first quarter. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) pushed back on Musk's criticism. 'With all due respect, my friend Elon is terribly wrong about the One Big Beautiful Bill,' Johnson told reporters. ALSO READ: Social Security Fairness Act big update given on expanded benefits. Here's how it will impact millions of Americans The speaker said that he and Musk talked about the legislation and other topics for 20 minutes Monday and that the two appeared to end the phone conversation on common ground. 'Elon is missing it, okay?' Johnson added. 'And it's not personal. I know that the EV mandate [is] very important to him; that is going away because the government should not be subsidizing these things as part of the Green New Deal. And I know that has an effect on his business, and I lament that. … But for him to come out and pan the whole bill is, to me, just very disappointing, very surprising, in light of the conversation I had with him yesterday.' Economic Times WhatsApp channel )