892 S.E.2d 121
S.C.2023Background
- After this Court struck down South Carolina's 2021 Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act in Planned Parenthood I, the General Assembly enacted a revised 2023 Act that again bans most abortions after detection of a "fetal heartbeat" but adds new legislative findings, repeals prior "informed choice" language, and expands contraceptive coverage and emergency-contraception protections.
- Planned Parenthood and medical providers sued, and the circuit court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the 2023 Act.
- The State sought expedited review in the South Carolina Supreme Court's original jurisdiction; the Court granted review and stayed the injunction.
- The Court majority (Kittredge, Few, James, Hill) assumed for purposes of analysis that article I, §10's privacy protection reaches bodily autonomy, but concluded the legislature's weighing of privacy against the State's interest in protecting unborn life was within a range of reasonable choices and upheld the 2023 Act as constitutional.
- The Court declined to apply stare decisis from Planned Parenthood I because the 2023 Act materially changed the legislative findings and statutory scheme; it summarily rejected other constitutional claims (due process, equal protection, vagueness, collateral estoppel).
- Chief Justice Beatty dissented, arguing the 2023 Act is materially the same as the 2021 Act, stare decisis should control, the statute likely operates as an effective six‑week ban that precludes informed choice, and the Court improperly left the meaning of "fetal heartbeat" unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2023 Act facially violates article I, §10 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) | Act bans abortion before many women know they're pregnant, denying "informed choice," so it's an unreasonable privacy invasion | Legislature reasonably balanced interests; findings, exceptions, contraceptive/early‑testing measures and deference support constitutionality | Court upheld Act: invasion acknowledged but found legislature's balance reasonable as a matter of law; injunction vacated |
| Whether Planned Parenthood I controls (stare decisis) | Prior decision striking 2021 Act should control similar statute | 2023 Act materially differs (new findings, removed "informed choice," family‑planning provisions); stare decisis reduced here | Court rejected stare decisis; treated 2023 Act as new legislation |
| Other constitutional challenges (vagueness, due process, equal protection, collateral estoppel) | Statute is vague and violates due process/equal protection/collateral estoppel | Statute survives rational‑basis review; Dobbs and other authorities support rejection | Court summarily rejected these claims without full factual development |
| Meaning/scope of "fetal heartbeat" and as‑applied timing (e.g., "six‑week" issue) | Definition targets early embryonic electrical activity (effectively ~6‑week ban); medically inaccurate and ambiguous | Legislative findings say cardiac activity begins at a biologically identifiable moment; enforcement depends on qualified clinicians | Court declined to decide precise temporal/medical meaning and left as‑applied interpretation for another day |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State, 438 S.C. 188 (2023) (prior South Carolina decision invalidating the 2021 Fetal Heartbeat Act and framing the privacy/informed‑choice analysis)
- Singleton v. State, 313 S.C. 75 (1993) (recognized article I, §10 protection extends to bodily autonomy/medical decisions)
- Richards v. City of Columbia, 227 S.C. 538 (1955) (legislative findings entitled to deference and presumed valid absent convincing contrary evidence)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (courts owe deference to legislative judgments in abortion regulation contexts)
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) (federal precedent ending Roe framework; relevant to federal constitutional arguments)
- Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Repub. Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (facial‑challenge caution; courts should not decide broader constitutional questions than necessary)