South Carolina’s 6-week abortion ban ruled unconstitutional


1/3

Licensed photoalt=”South Carolina’s Supreme Court has ruled that the Fetal Heart Rate Protection Act, which bans abortions after six weeks’ gestation, is unconstitutional.” File photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | Licensed photo” onclick=”st_ss_sh1();”/>

According to South Carolina’s Supreme Court, the Prenatal Heart Rate Protection Act, which bans abortions after six weeks’ gestation, is unconstitutional. File photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License photo

January 5 (UPI) — According to South Carolina’s Supreme Court, the Prenatal Heart Rate Protection Act, which bans abortions after six weeks’ gestation, is unconstitutional.

The bill passed less than a year later and took effect after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Her 3-2 court ruling on Thursday nullified the law and upheld abortion rights up to 22 weeks’ gestation.

The court ruled that the law violated the state constitution because it has a clause that mentions citizens’ privacy rights not found in the U.S. Constitution.

“The right to keep persons, homes, papers, and possessions safe against unreasonable search or seizure, or against unjust invasion of privacy,” the state constitution says.

The state argued that the provision referred only to “criminal defendants” in connection with the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure, the court said in its opinion.

The court dismissed this claim, saying it applied to women’s privacy in health care whether explicitly stated or not.

Judge Kay Hahn said in a written ruling that a woman must be given time to find out about her pregnancy and decide whether to have an abortion, which is not allowed in six weeks.

“[I]In order to make an informed choice as to whether to continue the pregnancy, pregnant women have a legitimate interest in knowing the likelihood of a human fetus surviving to term based on the presence of a fetal heartbeat. We have,” wrote the South Carolina General Assembly.

“It’s immediately clear that this finding links a woman’s decision to continue her pregnancy with the likelihood that her fetus will survive to term,” Hahn wrote.

“Certainly, the wording itself overtly characterizes the decision as an informed choice. whether or not we have a meaningful chance to decide whether to continue the pregnancy to term. This is clearly related to the question before us.

Chief Justices Don Beatty and John Cannon Few, along with Hahn, ruled to nullify the law. Judges George James Jr. and John Kittredge ruled to the contrary.

House Speaker Murrell Smith Said The court created a “constitutional right to abortion in the absence of it.”

Women attend a candlelight rally in Washington on June 26, two days after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended federal abortion protection. Photo by Jemal Countess/UPI | Licensed photo





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *