COLUMBIA, S.C. — A pivotal legal battle is resuming in South Carolina regarding the state’s heartbeat abortion ban, as representatives from both the state and Planned Parenthood convene at the state’s highest court to deliberate over the nuances of the law’s restrictions. This ongoing discussion centers around the legislation that effectively prohibits nearly all abortions around six weeks post-conception—a timeline identified as the point when cardiac activity is perceived.
Planned Parenthood, alongside other advocates for abortion rights, contends that the 2023 law presents varying definitions concerning when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, arguing that the effective prohibition on abortions should initiate around nine to ten weeks into the pregnancy. On Wednesday, attorneys representing both sides engaged in over an hour of dialogue at the South Carolina Supreme Court in Columbia, though a resolution from the justices may take several months. During this interval, the six-week abortion ban is likely to remain operational, as it has received affirmation from a lower court.
According to the stipulations stated in the 2023 law, abortion procedures are not permitted after an ultrasound can identify “cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart, within the gestational sac.” South Carolina’s definition aligns with that of several other states, marking six weeks into gestation as the cutoff. However, the follow-up clause in the law raises questions about the actual formation of the heart, a developmental milestone that experts assert typically occurs around the nine-week mark.
The legal contention has been intensifying since the state Supreme Court’s previous decision to reverse a comparable abortion ban in 2021. Following this, the Republican-led General Assembly made minor adjustments to the legislation, further complicated by the retirement of a key justice involved in the tight decision to overturn the initial ban.
During the recent court session, justices acknowledged the ambiguous language within the law, recognizing that the resolution of these discrepancies will have to wait for a future date. The law’s treatment of a fetal heartbeat has come under scrutiny, as medical experts suggest that for about ten weeks post-conception, a fertilized egg is considered an embryo rather than a fetus.
State attorneys argued that dissecting the law’s language diverges from the legislative intent, emphasizing that both proponents and opponents labeled it as primarily a six-week ban during discussions in the House and Senate. Planned Parenthood previously referred to the legislation consistently as a six-week ban, a stance echoed by representatives from the governor’s office.
Justice George James raised concerns regarding the lack of clarity surrounding when exactly cardiac activity might occur, questioning the practical implications of uncertainty around the law. “Could it happen on the way to the doctor’s office? How does that give anyone any clarity?” he queried.
In response, Planned Parenthood’s attorney, Catherine Humphreville, highlighted that this ambiguity poses significant challenges. She emphasized that if a woman seeks an abortion but a doctor cannot detect a heartbeat, the uncertainty surrounding the six-week window can dissuade physicians from proceeding with the procedure out of fear of severe legal repercussions. “Without certainty, no doctor is going to perform an abortion in South Carolina at say, eight weeks, because of the grave criminal consequences they face — facing potential jail time,” she explained.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, which eradicated the federal right to abortion, a wave of new restrictions has been enacted across Republican-controlled states, while many Democratic-led states have sought to safeguard access to abortion services. Currently, there are 13 states enforcing comprehensive abortion bans, and South Carolina, among others, has restrictions that activate around the six-week mark—often before women are even aware of their pregnancies.
The ongoing legal challenges are underscored by personal narratives, such as that of Taylor Shelton, a South Carolina resident who faced unexpected pregnancy after experiencing complications with her intrauterine device. After missing her period, Shelton found herself traveling to North Carolina for an abortion, wrestling with the uncertainty of whether she was still within the legal timeframe due to the ambiguous definitions surrounding the heartbeat law.
In the South Carolina legislature, some Republican members are advocating for an outright abortion prohibition. However, despite the introduction of legislation aimed at this goal in January, no public hearings have been conducted as of yet during the ongoing session.
