South Carolina Supreme Court upholds ‘fetal heartbeat' abortion ban
Justices ruled the state can continue to ban abortion starting at six weeks of gestation, when the current law states a 'fetal heartbeat' can begin to be detected.
Abortions in the state have been banned as soon as a health care provider can detect 'cardiac activity, or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart, within the gestational sac,' under a 2023 law called the Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act.
Many other states, including Texas, Oklahoma and Idaho, have passed similar 'heartbeat' abortion bans, with some Republican-led states doing so after the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The law states that such cardiac activity occurs at around six weeks after conception, but Planned Parenthood challenged the law's merit in court, arguing that it uses an alternative definition of when the fetal heart forms and when a heartbeat starts.
They argue that this type of 'cardiac activity does not occur until all four chambers of the heart have formed' and that a 'heartbeat' ban should start at around nine or 10 weeks after conception.
Justices noted in their ruling that the definition of a 'fetal heartbeat' in the 2023 law is ambiguous and does not convey a 'clear, definite meaning.'
'Not one of the terms the General Assembly used in the definition-not 'cardiac activity' nor 'steady,' 'repetitive,' 'rhythmic,' 'contraction,' 'fetal heart,' nor even 'gestational sac,'-is a precise medically defined term,' they wrote.
Health care workers disagree on the precise meaning of these words, they added, which forced them to 'turn to rules of statutory construction and other evidence of what the General Assembly intended.'
Associate Justice John Few wrote in the ruling that the language of the 2023 law was identical to a 2021 version of the law, which was understood to mean a six-week abortion ban.
Because lawmakers understood the law to mean abortions should be banned in the state at six weeks, that is how lawmakers should interpret the 2023 act.
'We count at least sixty separate instances during the 2023 legislative session in which a member of the House or Senate referred to the 2023 Act as a six-week ban on abortion, many of which specifically referenced the Court's analysis of the 2021 Act,' he wrote. '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.'
Anti-abortion groups called the Supreme Court's decision a victory.
'Planned Parenthood has failed in attempting to rewrite the science of human development to further their agenda for more abortions and more profit,' said Caitlin Connors, political director of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.
As did South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R).
'Time and time again, we have defended the right to life in South Carolina, and time and time again, we have prevailed,' the governor wrote in a statement.
'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.'
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood vowed to continue to challenge the law until South Carolinians can receive abortion care.
'Justice did not prevail today, and the people of South Carolina are paying the price,' said Paige Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, in a statement.
'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 cruel politics of South Carolina lawmakers are harming families and destroying a health care system as more and more providers feel the state. But we will never back down, and neither should you.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US senators call for Meta probe after Reuters report on its AI policies
By Jody Godoy (Reuters) -Two Republican U.S. senators called for a congressional investigation into Meta Platforms on Thursday after Reuters exclusively reported on an internal policy document that permitted the company's chatbots to 'engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual.' Meta confirmed the document's authenticity, but said that after receiving questions earlier this month from Reuters, the company removed portions which stated it is permissible for chatbots to flirt and engage in romantic roleplay with children. "So, only after Meta got CAUGHT did it retract portions of its company doc," Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said in a post on social media site X. "This is grounds for an immediate congressional investigation," Hawley said. A spokesperson for Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee, said she supports an investigation into the social media company. Blackburn also added that the report illustrates the need to pass reforms to better protect children online, such as the Kids Online Safety Act, a bill she co-sponsored which the Senate passed last year but which failed in the U.S. House of Representatives. 'When it comes to protecting precious children online, Meta has failed miserably by every possible measure. Even worse, the company has turned a blind eye to the devastating consequences of how its platforms are designed," Blackburn said. KOSA would make explicit a "duty of care" that social media companies have when it comes to minors using their products, focusing on design of the platforms and regulation of the companies. The standards described in the Meta document don't necessarily reflect 'ideal or even preferable' generative AI outputs, the document states. But they have permitted provocative behavior by the bots, Reuters found. In one example, the document notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that 'every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply.' Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, called the policies "deeply disturbing and wrong," adding that Section 230, a law that shields internet companies from liability for the content posted to their platforms, should not protect companies' generative AI chatbots. "Meta and Zuckerberg should be held fully responsible for any harm these bots cause,' he said. Sign in to access your portfolio
Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
California moving forward with partisan redistricting effort to counter Texas' move
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The Democrats' proposed maps still haven't been released. That's expected on Friday. Then, lawmakers plan to quickly approve them next week. Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers. Advertisement Newsom, who is seen as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, urged Trump in a letter earlier this week to abandon his scheme, telling the president he is 'playing with fire' and 'risking the destabilization of our democracy.' The California map would only take effect if Texas and other states move forward with their own redistricting efforts, and they would remain through the 2030 elections. After that, Democrats say they would return mapmaking power to an independent redistricting commission approved by voters more than a decade ago. Advertisement There are 435 seats in the U.S. House and Republicans currently hold an 219-212 majority, with four vacancies. New maps are typically drawn once a decade after the census is conducted. Many states give legislators the power to draw maps but some, like California, rely on an independent commission that is supposed to be nonpartisan. The Thursday announcement marks the first time any state beyond Texas is officially wading into the mid-decade redistricting fight, kicking off a national standoff that could continue spilling into other states. California Democrats face more complex legal and logistical hurdles than Republicans do in Texas. It's not clear how voters would respond to the mid-decade effort after they voted to give the power of drawing congressional maps to an independent commission in 2010. In Texas, that power lies with the Republican-controlled Legislature. Some already said they would sue to block the effort, and influential voices including former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may campaign against it. 'Gavin Newsom's latest stunt has nothing to do with Californians and everything to do with consolidating radical Democrat power, silencing California voters, and propping up his pathetic 2028 presidential pipe dream,' National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said in a statement. 'Newsom's made it clear: he'll shred California's Constitution and trample over democracy - running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority.' California Democrats already hold 43 of the state's 52 House seats, and the state has some of the most competitive House seats. Advertisement Elsewhere, leaders from red Florida to blue New York are threatening to write their own new maps, bucking the standard once-a-decade redistricting process that happens after the census. But none have moved as far as Texas and, soon, California, in advancing new maps. Missouri lawmakers are waiting for Gov. Mike Kehoe to call a special session to draw more favorable Republican maps, and a document obtained by The Associated Press shows the state Senate has received a $46,000 invoice to activate six redistricting software licenses and provide training for up to 10 staff members.
Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Justice Clarence Thomas wants to overturn same-sex marriage protections. Kim Davis is leading the charge.
What are substantive due process rights? They are constitutional rights that the court has recognized even though they are not explicitly stated in the wording of the Constitution. Instead, they emanate from its Due Process Clause, which prohibits the government's deprivation of a person's Advertisement Thomas specifically cited three court substantive due process precedents that he'd like to see overturned. The first was All three of these rulings, and many more including Advertisement Given that 'Because any substantive due process decision is demonstrably erroneous, we have a duty to correct the error established in those precedents,' Thomas wrote (citations, all to his own previous concurring opinions, omitted here). That was an open invitation. And Kim Davis, a former clerk for Rowan County, Ky., who gained nationwide attention for refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after Obergefell was handed down, has answered the call. This Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees in a case brought against her by two Kentucky men who were denied a license to marry in summer 2015, just days after the Obergefell decision. Davis claims that the lawsuit and verdict violated her First Amendment free exercise rights because same-sex marriage goes against her religious beliefs. She could have stopped there with her petition to the court for relief, but she went further, asking the court to Legal experts differ as to the likelihood of the court taking this case up. Some, like Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, say that Advertisement I would have agreed with him years ago, before Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored Obergefell, retired. But with this court, I make no such predictions. While no other justice joined Thomas's call to revisit and reverse all substantive due process precedents, the fact that the current court's majority was willing to cross that rubicon in striking down Roe is a big red flag. Abortion access also enjoys broad public support, but that proved no disincentive to the court. And the Venn diagram of the antiabortion and the anti-LGBTQ movements, I strongly suspect, looks a lot more like one circle than two. Davis didn't come to the Supreme Court all by her lonesome. The Finally, although no one joined Thomas's provocative dissent in Dobbs, none of the court's majority rejected it either. Other single-justice calls for challenges, such as the one by Justice Brett Kavanaugh The stakes are too high to ignore: If Obergefell is overturned, So I will take Thomas's Dobbs challenge literally and seriously. I think you should too: Advertisement '(I)n future cases, we should 'follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away,'' Thomas wrote, quoting the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. 'Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.' This is an excerpt from , a newsletter about the Supreme Court from columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
