The South Carolina Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold a “heartbeat” abortion ban has raised concerns among abortion providers who argue that the ruling lacks a clear definition of what constitutes a “fetal heartbeat.”
In a footnote of its majority opinion, the court explicitly stated that the specific definition of a “fetal heartbeat” should be addressed at a later time.
While the state’s abortion ban has generally been understood to prohibit the procedure after six weeks of conception, medical experts and abortion providers question this timeline, pointing out that a fetus is not fully formed until 8-10 weeks into a pregnancy, and the heart’s four chambers do not develop until 18-20 weeks.
In response to the ruling, these groups have filed a challenge seeking clarification on the meaning of “fetal heartbeat” and requesting a suspension of the abortion ban until this clarification is resolved.
“The failure to address this question leaves the respondents, who are the only abortion providers in the state, in an impossible situation,” the plaintiffs argued. They further added that due to the potential legal consequences of performing abortions in violation of the ban, they had no choice but to cease their services for South Carolinians whose pregnancies have progressed beyond approximately six weeks.
The portion of the court’s ruling in question also faced criticism from Chief Justice Donald Beatty, who expressed his dissent by stating that the ruling did not resolve the contradiction in the legislation regarding the timing of the “fetal heartbeat” ban.
Notably, the law defines a fetal heartbeat as “cardiac activity, or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart, within the gestational sac.” Abortion providers and medical experts argue that this definition aligns more with the heart’s development at 18-20 weeks, rather than the widely recognized six-week ban imposed by the law.
South Carolina Republicans anticipate ongoing legal challenges against the law.
“It wouldn’t surprise me if Planned Parenthood continues to fight,” remarked state Senate Majority Leader A. Shane Massey. He added that the law is “very clear.”
Chief Justice Beatty was the sole justice to oppose the law’s constitutionality.
“The court’s conclusion that the 2023 act is valid, while remaining silent on its timing, and without explicitly addressing the perception that it effectively enforces a six-week ban, is concerning,” Beatty wrote in his dissent. “There is a palpable fear of political repercussions in this matter.”
Furthermore, medical experts have raised doubts about the definitions included in the bill, pointing out that these definitions are legislative in nature and proposed by individuals without medical expertise.
“This language creates uncertainty among medical providers who may be unsure about the legality of terminating a pregnancy,” stated Dr. Dawn Bingham, chairwoman of the South Carolina section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
South Carolina is one of three states that have enacted “heartbeat bills,” with the others being Georgia and Ohio. However, the Ohio measure is facing legal challenges and is not currently in effect.
In addition, Florida has passed a six-week abortion ban that is currently pending due to legal challenges against other anti-abortion laws in the state.
© 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
