Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. State
Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) explicit right to privacy (Art. I, § 10), 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3), and 3) guarantee of due process — life and liberty (Art. I, § 3). They also claim the death and permanent injury exception to the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) right to privacy (Art. I, § 10), 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3), 3) guarantee of due process — life and liberty (Art. I, § 3), and 4) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. I, § 3). Finally, they claim the rape exception violates the state constitution’s 1) right to informational privacy (Art. I, § 10) and 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3). After assuming jurisdiction over the case, the South Carolina Supreme Court temporarily blocked the ban pending a decision on the merits. The Court then permanently blocked the ban, reasoning that it violated the South Carolina constitution’s right to privacy. According to the Court, the state’s ban was an unreasonable limitation on that right for reasons including that six weeks is not sufficient time for women to determine whether they are even pregnant, let alone take steps to terminate their pregnancies. The state filed a petition for rehearing with the South Carolina Supreme Court, which the Court denied.
Related Commentary
Mapping State Supreme Court Abortion Rights Decisions
A new tool from the Center for Reproductive Rights tracks abortion-related state constitutional developments across the country.
2023’s Most Significant State Constitutional Cases
Over a dozen academics, practitioners, and thought leaders weigh in on the most notable state constitutional cases of the year.
When Do State Courts Depart from Federal Precedents?
State courts have varying and sometimes unclear rules for interpreting their constitutions independently.
Abortion Cases Take Originalism Debate to the States
In striking down an abortion ban in South Carolina and upholding one in Idaho, state high courts are grappling with the use of history in constitutional interpretation.