South Carolina's controversial six-week abortion ban faced a fresh legal challenge on Thursday, as Planned Parenthood and the state clashed over conflicting definitions of a "heartbeat" in the law.
The state Supreme Court, which upheld the ban in August, noted the ambiguity around the definition of "fetal heartbeat," suggesting it would be addressed in the future. Circuit Judge Daniel Coble is now considering Planned Parenthood's request to block the law while courts decide on the definitions, with a ruling expected in the coming weeks. However, regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be tied up in appeals for months or even years.
Planned Parenthood argued that since the law's implementation, three-quarters of women seeking abortions were turned away because their pregnancies were too far along. They claim that 86% of those women could have had the procedure if the law allowed abortions up to nine weeks.
The state defines fetal heartbeat as the moment ultrasound detects cardiac activity, usually around six weeks after conception. However, the law also refers to when the major parts of the heart come together and "repetitive rhythmic contraction" begins, which typically occurs around nine weeks.
Lawyers for the state countered Planned Parenthood's argument by pointing out that the organization previously stated over 300 times that the law banned abortions after six weeks. They suggest that Planned Parenthood changed its interpretation only after losing legal challenges.
The debate revolves around the interpretation of the law's intent. South Carolina's governor's lawyer argued that the General Assembly focused solely on the six-week mark during the abortion debate, referring to the electrical impulses that produce the ultrasound's whoosh sound.
Planned Parenthood's lawyer, however, highlighted the need for a conservative interpretation of the law due to criminal penalties. They argued that since doctors could face criminal charges, they had to interpret the law cautiously to protect themselves.
South Carolina's law is unique in its wording compared to other states with similar bans. Minor differences in punctuation, according to Planned Parenthood, mean the ban doesn't take effect until the chambers and valves of the heart come together, indicating a more advanced stage of development.
The case comes in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, leading to a patchwork of state laws regarding abortion. Currently, 14 states enforce bans on abortion at all stages, with limited exceptions, while South Carolina and two others have bans around six weeks into pregnancy. Arizona recently repealed a Civil War-era ban on nearly all abortions.
Taylor Shelton, the woman who filed the lawsuit along with Planned Parenthood, shared her story, emphasizing the confusion and challenges created by the law. She described the difficulty of navigating the system and the lack of clear, prioritized laws regarding reproductive rights.
Shelton expressed anger at a system that controls women's bodies and dictates their choices, stating that clear, unequivocal laws are necessary to prevent others from enduring similar experiences.