South Carolina Republican lawmakers are preparing to try and debate abortion again in 2023 after the GOP-controlled House and Senate were unable to reach a compromise this fall mainly over how early in a pregnancy to ban the procedure.
So far, Republican legislators have filed two proposals ahead of the start of session on Jan. 10 that would ban abortion at conception, though each bill differs on how many exceptions to include.
“We’re ready to draft a law and pass a law that will protect more life in South Carolina,” said Rep. John McCravy, a Greenwood Republican, who unsuccessfully pushed for a near-total abortion ban this year.
In the background is what the South Carolina Supreme Court decides over the state’s temporarily paused six-week abortion law, as it mulls whether it violates the state’s constitutional right to privacy. Coined the “heartbeat” bill, the law bans abortions at about six weeks of pregnancy, and includes exceptions for rape, incest, fetal anomaly and the mother’s life.
Legislators’ renewed efforts to further ban abortion follows a November tidal wave for the S.C. Republican Party, which now holds a supermajority in the House, with 88 seats to Democrats’ 36. The Senate — split by 30 Republicans to 16 Democrats — is up for reelection in 2024.
Though a bill banning abortion at conception may pass the House, the Senate’s Republican leader has continued to reiterate the votes likely aren’t there in the upper chamber to ban abortion earlier than six weeks.
Democrats, who will be faced next year with a smaller caucus in the House, say they’re already strategizing ahead of session, filing their own bills that would protect abortion access and put the question to voters on the next ballot.
“We are strategizing and determining how to proceed based on what was pre-filed,” said Richland County Rep. Heather Bauer, the only Democrat to flip a Republican-held seat in November.
Bauer, who beat longtime Rep. Kirkman Finlay, R-Richland, ran her campaign primarily on reproductive health care.
Will SC lawmakers try to ban abortions again in 2023?
Before the start of the two-year session, two Republican legislators, one in the House and one in the Senate, have filed near identical proposals to ban nearly all abortions in South Carolina.
In the lower chamber, McCravy, who chairs the conservative House Family Caucus, filed the same bill he introduced in the House earlier this year, H. 5399. The legislation would ban abortions at conception, seek to protect access to in vitro fertilization and contraception, and only allow abortions if the pregnancy risks the mother’s life or would cause “substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman,” but not including psychological or emotional conditions.
McCravy’s bill, H. 3552, has more than 30 co-sponsors, including House Speaker Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, and House Majority Leader Davey Hiott, R-Pickens.
Another House Republican proposal, filed by Rep. Stephen Long, R-Spartanburg, would eliminate the fatal fetal anomaly exception from the state’s six-week law.
A twin proposal in the Senate, filed by Sen. Billy Garrett, R-McCormick, also would ban abortions at conception, but widen the number of exceptions to include health and life of the mother, rape, incest and fatal fetal anomaly.
“I’m personally against these exceptions in my own walk (of life), but we’re trying to put together a bill that saves the most lives. As far as I’m concerned, I’m very practical about this, there has to be compromise in order to get things done,” Garrett said. “This bill is what it looks like ... the Senate wants, it looks like what the House wants, and so the debate comes down to when we begin these protections.”
Most legislators support exceptions in an abortion ban — in the House, for example, more conservative lawmakers have struggled to get a bill passed by a majority without them — as do most South Carolinians according to polls.
The latest Winthrop University Poll, released in November, showed 86% of S.C. respondents support an exception for the life of the mother, 82% support an exception for rape, and 63% support an exception if the fetus will likely be born with severe disabilities or health problems.
Only 46% of respondents said abortion should be legal for any reason.
The House could pass a near-total abortion ban next year, as it did this fall, but any bill that bans abortions before six weeks still will likely face hurdles to pass in the Senate.
“Abortion is obviously a top priority, but as we see it now, the ball is still in the Senate’s court and so we know where this House stands, it’s only gotten more pro-life in my opinion and it’s up to the Senate to act,” Smith said.
After an hourslong debate in the Senate, showing Republicans split over exceptions and when to ban abortions, the Senate voted to only tweak the state’s six-week law. The bill narrowed the exceptions for rape and incest to 12 weeks, and added that two physicians must sign off on whether a fetus has a fatal anomaly. It also included an exception for the mother’s life.
But the House did not accept the Senate version, sending the bill to negotiations, and lawmakers failed to reach a compromise before session ended.
“This is one of those things that’s a moral issue for lots of us. You know where you are coming in and you’re probably not going to be persuaded by debate,” said Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield. “At this point based on all the conversations I’ve had with senators on a private basis and based on the votes we’ve had, it is still clear to me that the Senate does not have votes for a ban earlier than six weeks.”
Democrats seek to protect abortion amid court review
Democrats, already the minority party in the State House, say they plan to fight off any attempt next year to further restrict abortion access.
In the fall, House Democrats helped expose a split within the House Republican Caucus over abortion exceptions by deciding to vote with the chamber’s more conservative members against including them. Though the unsuccessful strategy was to help kill the bill, knowing a proposal without exceptions likely couldn’t pass, Republicans were forced to return to privately caucus to find a path forward.
Among the handful of proposals filed, Senate Democrats Brad Hutto of Orangeburg and Gerald Malloy, of Darlington, have proposed legislation to protect abortion access that would make abortion legal up to a fetus’ viability and put the question over abortion access to voters on a statewide referendum.
And state Sen. Mia McLeod, D-Richland, has filed a bill that would require the state compensate women for health care and other costs for women associated with keeping a pregnancy over having an abortion.
“My plea to them (Republicans), can we please focus on issues that will help the greater good of South Carolina?” said Democratic Rep. Bauer, who called the debate a waste of time and money. “Can we talk about education? Can we talk about growing business?”
Legislative efforts to further restrict or expand abortion come as the South Carolina Supreme Court reviews whether the state’s six-week ban is constitutional.
The current state law, which bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically around the six-week mark when critics of the ban say most women don’t know they’re pregnant, is currently on hold because of the court’s review, leaving the state’s previous 20-week law in effect.
At least one legislator said he does not want to wait on the court’s decision, should it made well after the Legislature starts the new session.
“It’s an unpredictable variable, but, as a general rule, I don’t think we should be waiting for the Supreme Court to rule because the Legislature makes the laws in this state, not the Supreme Court,” Rep. McCravy said.
State Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, a vocal anti-abortion advocate, however, wants to wait and see, adding lawmakers should be able to react quickly to whatever the state Supreme Court decides. Grooms says he wants to wait for the court’s decision before working on any legislation.
“I think we need to see exactly what the courts are going to say and then craft legislation around that,” Grooms said. “There’s some others that have a differing opinion and I don’t want to get ahead of the court.”
