On Thursday, the South Carolina Supreme Court made a disastrous decision, declaring that the state’s ban on abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, typically around six weeks of pregnancy, is a violation of the state’s constitutional right to privacy. This ruling, made by a slim 3-2 majority, comes nearly two years after the state’s Republican Governor, Henry McMaster, signed the restriction into law.
Although the ban wrongly included exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, or those that pose a danger to the patient’s life, it was immediately met with legal challenges. In her majority opinion, Justice Kaye Hearn argued that the state does have the authority to restrict a woman’s right to privacy and access to abortion, but any such limitations must allow the woman enough time to realize she is pregnant and take steps to end the pregnancy.
In response to the Court’s ruling, South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Trav Robertson released a statement praising the decision as bringing “a voice of reason and sanity” to counter the state’s Republican efforts to “strip rights away from women and doctors.” However, Republican South Carolina House Speaker G. Murrell Smith, Jr. took to Twitter to express his disagreement with the ruling, stating that the state justices “followed the path of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade by creating a constitutional right to an abortion where none exists.” Smith also argued that the decision failed to respect the separation of powers.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Kittredge warned against resolving this policy dispute through a judicial decision rather than through a “proper constitutional challenge.” This disagreement highlights the ongoing and contentious debate surrounding reproductive rights and the role of the courts in interpreting and upholding constitutional rights.
Join Us and Get These Perks:
✅ No Ads in Articles
✅ Access to Comments and Discussions
✅ Community Chats
✅ Full Article and Podcast Archive
✅ The Joy of Supporting Our Work 😉
This ruling is a tragedy for the pro-life abolitionist movement and for the innocent children whose lives are at stake and gives legitimacy to the pro-death camp that simply wants to run a murder-for-hire scheme on unborn children. It’s an industry worth billions and a cash cow to a movement that hates God and the life He creates. This ruling allows for even more unborn children to be killed at a later stage in their development, disregarding the value and dignity of every human life. The right to privacy should not be used as an excuse to end the life of an innocent and defenseless child.