In a striking turn of events, the South Carolina Supreme Court has reversed its stance on abortion rights. By a 4-1 vote, the court upheld the state’s new near-total ban on abortion, a stark departure from its previous decision in January that had declared a right to abortion under the State Constitution’s privacy protections. The shift was anticipated due to changes in the court’s composition and a recent change in the state’s abortion law.
The January decision, written by the only female justice on the court, had been based on the right to privacy in the State Constitution, protecting a woman’s choice to have an abortion. However, that justice retired, leaving an all-male high court. The recent decision echoed the acknowledgment of the right to privacy but contended that the legislature had struck a balance between pregnant women’s interests and those of the fetus.
Justice John Kittredge, writing for the majority, acknowledged that the new law encroaches upon a woman’s privacy and autonomy, but argued that the state Constitution only forbids “unreasonable invasions of privacy.” The court upheld the new law banning abortions after embryonic cardiac activity is detectable, typically around six weeks of pregnancy. This marked a significant shift from the previous allowance of abortion until 22 weeks.
Republican legislators, aiming for a friendlier reception by the new court, celebrated the decision as a victory for the “unborn child.” Planned Parenthood criticized the decision, asserting that it compels women to continue pregnancies against their will and highlights the court’s politicization.
South Carolina, known for its conservative leaning, has become an unexpected battleground for abortion rights since the US Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision was overturned a year prior. The state’s Republicans had previously enacted a law banning abortions with detectable cardiac activity, effective post-Roe v. Wade. The initial ban was challenged by abortion rights advocates, leading to the January decision that recognized the right to abortion but with certain limitations.
With the new decision, South Carolina now joins the ranks of states with restrictive abortion laws, leading to concerns about the practicality of a six-week window for women to make a “meaningful choice” about abortion. The court’s change in stance, prompted by alterations in the court’s composition, raises questions about the dynamics between legal decisions and political agendas. Chief Justice Donald W. Beatty, the sole dissenter in the recent decision, voiced concerns about the court infringing upon women’s consent in childbirth, expressing deep reservations about this “governmental intrusion.”
The evolving landscape in South Carolina underscores the complex interplay between legal interpretations, gender dynamics, and political maneuvering, ultimately reshaping the boundaries of reproductive rights.
COMMENTS