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.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Justices asked to prevent ‘immigration dragnet' ensnaring citizens in roving Trump patrols
The Trump administration recently told the Supreme Court that a California judge's order put law enforcement in a 'straitjacket.' But plaintiffs who won that lower court order have urged the high court to keep it in place, arguing that lifting it would bless an 'immigration dragnet' ensnaring millions of people in the Los Angeles area — including U.S. citizens — based on how they look and speak, and where they work and congregate. U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued the temporary restraining order against the government on July 11. The Biden appointee said the individuals and groups that sued, which include U.S. citizens, would likely succeed in proving that the government is 'conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers.' For now, she said, the government can't rely solely on any combination of the following four factors to make stops: apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or accented English; presence at a particular location, like a day laborer pickup area; or one's type of work. After a federal appeals court panel declined to intervene on the administration's behalf, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer turned to the Supreme Court for help in lifting the order, which he said 'defies blackletter Fourth Amendment law, imposing a straitjacket on law-enforcement efforts that is inimical to the context- and case-specific totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry that this Court's precedents demand.' Opposing emergency high court relief, the plaintiffs countered that the judge's order 'broke no new legal ground,' and that it 'does not prevent the government from enforcing the immigration laws, conducting consensual encounters, or relying on any or all of the four factors along with other facts to form reasonable suspicion.' They further wrote that the administration's 'extraordinary claim that it can get very close to justifying a seizure of any Latino person in the Central District [of California] because of the asserted number of Latino people there who are not legally present is anathema to the Constitution.' The administration can file a final reply brief the justices, after which we will learn whether this will be the latest instance of the high court saving the administration from a lower court loss in President Donald Trump's second term. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump pledged to move homeless people from Washington. What we know and don't know about his plans
President Donald Trump says homeless people in the nation's capital will be moved far from the city as part of his federal takeover of policing in the District of Columbia and crackdown on crime. With his exact plans unclear, there is concern among advocates and others who say there are better ways to address the issue of homelessness than clearing encampments, as the Republican administration has pledged to do. Washington's status as a congressionally established federal district gives Trump the opportunity to push his tough-on-crime agenda, though he has not proposed solutions to the root causes of homelessness or crime. Here's a look at what we know and what questions remain about how Trump's actions will affect the city's homeless population: How many homeless people are in Washington? It is difficult to obtain accurate counts of homeless populations. On one day at the end of each January, municipal agencies across the United States perform what is called a 'point-in-time' count aimed at capturing the total number of people in emergency shelters, transitional housing or without any housing. The 2025 count in the district put the total at 5,138 adults and children, a 9% decrease compared with the year before, according to Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser. Where will the city's homeless people be taken? It's not entirely clear. Trump wrote on his social media site before Monday's news conference announcing the takeover that 'The homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital.' Asked during a media briefing at the White House on Tuesday where homeless people would be relocated, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said local police and federal agencies would 'enforce the laws that are already on the books,' which, she said, 'have been completely ignored.' Citing a city regulation that she said gives local police 'the authority to take action when it comes to homeless encampments,' Leavitt said homeless people 'will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services.' Those who refuse 'will be susceptible to fines or to jail time.' In the past five months, the U.S. Park Police has removed 70 homeless encampments, giving the people living in them the same options, she said. As of Tuesday, Leavitt said only two homeless encampments remained in district parks maintained by the National Park Service and would be removed this week. What are city officials doing for the homeless? District officials said Tuesday they were making additional shelter space available after Trump said federal agents would remove homeless people in the city. Kevin Donahue, the city administrator, said outreach workers were visiting homeless encampments and that the city has a building available that could house as many as 200 people, if needed. Donahue made the comments during a conversation with community advocates and Bowser. The conversation was broadcast on X. He said the outreach would continue through the week with a 'greater level of urgency.' Bowser said that when Trump sees homeless encampments in the city it 'triggers something in him that has him believing our very beautiful city is dirty, which it is not.' What are Washington residents saying? Washington residents emphasized reductions in crime in recent years and concerns over the removal of homeless encampments in interviews Tuesday criticizing the federal takeover of the city's police department. Jeraod Tyre, who has lived in the city for 15 years, said 'crime has been slowing down lately' and argued that federal troops would only escalate tensions because they do not have 'relationships with the people in the community' like local police do. Sheiena Taylor, 36, said she is more fearful as a result of the presence of federal forces in the city where she was born and raised. Taylor said she has seen federal officers around her home and on the subway and worries about their targeting of young people and people experiencing homelessness. 'Being homeless isn't a crime,' she said, emphasizing the need for solutions to the root causes of homelessness or crime rather than policing. What do we still not know? It's not exactly clear what agents specifically will be tasked with moving homeless people to areas outside the city. ___
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump looks to extend DC police takeover beyond 30 days
President Trump on Wednesday said he'll seek 'long-term extensions' from Congress to extend his federal takeover of the Washington, D.C., police amid his crackdown on crime in the nation's capital, declining to rule out the possibility of a national emergency. 'Well, if it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress,' Trump said, when asked about whether he's talked to the House and Senate about extending the takeover. He added that he expects to be before Congress 'very quickly' and snag Republican support. Trump on Monday put the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under federal control and activated National Guard troops, painting the district as being ravaged by violent crime. To do so, he invoked an emergency provision of the Home Rule Act, which lets the president take temporary control of the District's police in emergency conditions. Congress must pass a joint resolution to extend it beyond 30 days. Speaking to reporters at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday, Trump said he's aiming to go before Congress with a crime bill that will 'pertain initially to D.C.' but serve as a 'very positive example' for elsewhere. 'And we're going to be asking for an extension on that, long-term extensions, because you can't have 30 days. Thirty days is, that's, by the time you do it — we're going to have this in good shape. … We're going to do this very quickly, but we're going to want extensions,' Trump said. 'I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will. But I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously.' D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) has hit back at Trump's move, calling it an 'authoritarian push' by the administration. The Democratic Mayors Association called it a 'political charade' that doesn't match up with the actual crime statistics in the District.
