COLUMBIA, S.C. — The South Carolina Legislature looks well positioned to pass more restrictive abortion legislation this year should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn its 1973 landmark decision Roe v. Wade.
But top lawmakers from the South Carolina Senate and House differ on the timeline and how restrictive that ban should be.
Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that protects abortions federally, could be overturned this month after a leaked draft opinion reported by Politico in May revealed a majority of Supreme Court justices voted to do so.
In preparation for this move, the South Carolina House has already started the process to pass new anti-abortion legislation by the creation of a new panel in late May.
Established by House Speaker Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, the 12-member bipartisan panel will take public testimony on abortion. The panel will eventually guide abortion legislation in the House after.
Chaired by Rep. John McCravy, R-Greenwood, the panel is expected to begin meeting after July 1 if Roe v. Wade is overturned, or when the sine die resolution — an outline of what lawmakers can address after session ends — permits the Legislature to reconvene.
On June 15, McCravy, who chairs the conservative Family Caucus, signaled support for a total abortion ban without exceptions, adding that numerous House members agree.
The Family Caucus has successfully pushed for conservative legislation over the last two years in the House, including a six-week abortion ban and, just this year, the so-called “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires transgender athletes to participate in sports in accordance with the sex listed on their birth certificate. The bill was passed and signed into law this year.
Seven Family Caucus members were named to serve on the panel in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.
McCravy told reporters on June 15 that he has a notebook, “at least 3 inches thick,” full of potential abortion legislation in preparation for the Supreme Court’s decision.
“We’ll have to see what the will of the committee is,” McCravy said. “I feel like a lot of the members are in the same vein, so we’ll go through the process.”
Across the State House in the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, said they also plan to create a committee in response to the court’s decision if it decides to send abortion rights back to the states. Massey told The State that abortion legislation is not something to be rushed.
“It is important that you allow people to express their positions, allow people to be heard and listen to what people say,” Massey said. “In addition to allowing time for public input, you also have to make sure that whatever you do is consistent with the Supreme Court opinion.”
Massey said he has an idea of where senators stand on the issue, but couldn’t assume their position until the Supreme Court releases the decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the case that could lead to Roe v. Wade’s overruling.
Personally, Massey said he would support prohibiting abortion with the exceptions of the life of the mother, rape and incest.
Gov. Henry McMaster said in May he would sign legislation that does not provide exceptions for rape and incest. He also said that Roe does not have a basis in the U.S. Constitution.
Passionate debate across the state is anticipated to ensue no matter what the Supreme Court decides, Massey said.
For Democrats in the Senate and House, combating anti-abortion legislation remains a waiting game until the final Supreme Court decision is released.
In a proactive step from Senate Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, Sen. Margie Bright Matthews, D-Colleton, Sen. Marlon Kimpson, D-Charleston, and Sen. Vernon Stephens, D-Orangeburg, introduced the “Reproductive Health Rights Act” Wednesday when lawmakers were back in town to pass the budget.
The bill affirms the right to abortion access in South Carolina, and adds protections for contraception and in vitro fertilization.
But the bill has an uphill battle given that there are 16 Democrats in the Senate and 30 Republicans.
“I continue to believe that South Carolinians individually have the right to decide when and under what circumstances they become parents,” Hutto told The State. “That’s the individual South Carolinian’s choice in consultation with their health care provider (and) their religious beliefs.”
House Minority Leader Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, plans to insist that abortion rights be maintained but said he isn’t confident that the Republican lawmakers will respect that wish.
“They don’t give a damn about the life of a woman. Obviously, because they would add that as an exception, but I doubt they will. They don’t give a damn about a woman that has been raped. They don’t give a damn about a woman who has been raped by a relative. And so, as such, the governor has indicated he doesn’t give a damn either,” Rutherford told The State. “And so women will just be damned.”
Proponents of guaranteeing abortion access, like Rutherford, say that if the state outlaws them, more women will die by performing unsafe and unregulated abortions. Maternal mortality rates are currently a women’s health issue in South Carolina, but some advocates say they fear banning abortions will make matters worse.
Between 2015 and 2019, 75 women in South Carolina died within a six-week period of giving birth, according to a March 2021 brief from the South Carolina Maternal Morbidity and Morality Review Committee.
Women of color have a maternal mortality rate 2.4 times higher than white women.
Nationally, around 700 women die each year due to pregnancy complications.
Although the decision date of Dobbs is unknown, it is expected to come by late June to early July. The Supreme Court usually concludes its term then. The Supreme Court is expected to release more decisions Tuesday and Thursday, with abortion possibly being on the docket.
With the potential overturning of Roe looming, the future of abortion access remains uncertain.
If the landmark case is overruled, South Carolina’s six-week “fetal heartbeat” abortion bill that has been held up in the courts will likely be reinstated.
Signed into law by McMaster last February, the bill requires doctors to perform an ultrasound on a pregnant person to detect a heartbeat before an abortion can be approved. Unless the pregnant person’s life is threatened, the fetus has an anomaly incompatible with life or the pregnant person is a victim of rape or incest, the abortion cannot be performed.
The law was originally blocked due to questions of its constitutionality, but the court’s decision could open the door to it being viable soon after.
———
